Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study April 2014

NaƟonal Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Front Cover Photo

Missisquoi River – Dan Moriarty, courtesy of the Missisquoi River Basin AssociaƟon (MRBA)

Back Cover Photo

Trout River, Comstock Covered Bridge – Mike Manahan

Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Study Report and Environmental Assessment

Deeds

April 2014 Stewart

Department of the Interior The Naonal Park Service wishes to thank the Shana

by NaƟonal Park Service commitment of many individuals and organizaons Northeast Region (especially the Study Commiee appointees who Photo 15 State Street volunteered their me for over four years). Many Boston, MA 02109‐3572 thanks also to Joyce Kennedy Raymes, the Wild and 617‐223‐5191 Scenic Coordinator for the Lower Farmington and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study, who NaƟonal Park Service generously shared her me and resources for use in Northeast Region this Report and its companion document, the 200 Chestnut Street Management Plan. Please see the Management Plan Philadelphia, PA 19106 for a full list of acknowledgements and thanks to all 215‐597‐6482 who contributed to the Study.

For more informaon on the Upper Missisquoi and Chuck Barscz, Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers Trout Rivers, or to see the companion document: the Program, Division Chief, Naonal Park Service Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Management Plan (Management Plan) please Jamie Fosburgh, Northeast Region Rivers Program, visit www.vtwsr.org or contact: Upper Missisquoi New England Team Leader, Naonal Park Service and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study CommiƩee 2839 VT Route 105 Jim MacCartney, Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers East Berkshire, VT 05447 Program, River Manager, Naonal Park Service 802‐393‐0076 [email protected] Shana Stewart Deeds, Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Coordinator

Page i

Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study

Selectboard appointed Study Commiee members:

Berkshire Richford 1. Carol Hickey 1. Annee Goyne 2. Todd Kinney 2. Mary Robinson

Town of Enosburgh Town of Troy 1. Edward G. Ellis 1. Helene Croteau 2. Ken Secor 2. Robert Langlands

Village of Enosburg Falls Village of North Troy 1. Mike Manahan (Secretary) 1. Jim Starr 2. Eugene St. Onge Lowell 1. Mark Higley Wesield 2. Jeﬀ Parsons 1. Jacques Couture (Chair) 2. Dianne Laplante (Treasurer) Montgomery 1. Todd Lantery (Vice Chair) 2. Keith Sampietro

And other regular parcipants: Missisquoi River Basin Associaon: John Lile and Cynthia Sco Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NRPC): Catherine Dimitruk; Bethany Remmers VT Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets (VAAFM): Sylvia Jensen VT Department of Environmental Conservaon (DEC) ‐ Rick Hopkins, Cathy Kashanski, and Staci Pomeroy

Shana Stewart Deeds, Study Coordinator Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study 2839 VT Route 105, East Berkshire, VT 05447 802‐393‐0076 [email protected] www.vtwsr.org

Jamie Fosburgh Jim MacCartney New England Team Leader River Manager Northeast Region Rivers Program Wild and Scenic Rivers Program Naonal Park Service Naonal Park Service 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 54 Portsmouth Street 617‐223‐5191 Concord, NH 03301 [email protected] [email protected]

Page ii

Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Table of Contents

Cover Page ...... i

Study Committee ...... ii Table of Contents ...... iii Summary – Principal Findings ...... 1 Eligibility ...... 1 Classification ...... 1 Suitability ...... 1 Alternatives Considered ...... 2 Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan ...... 2 Support for Designation ...... 2 Partnership Wild and Scenic River Designation ...... 2 Chapter 1. Background ...... 3 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Program ...... 3 Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study History and Methods ...... 5 Preauthorization ...... 5 Legislation Introduced to and passed by Congress ...... 5 Study Committee Formed ...... 5 Study Committee Meetings ...... 7 Management Plan Development ...... 7 Study Committee Outreach and Education ...... 8 Study Committee Recommends Designation ...... 9 Town Meeting Vote ...... 9 Chapter 2. Description of the Study Area ...... 11 Description of the Study Area ...... 11 Segment by Segment Study Area Description ...... 13 Regional Setting ...... 15 Water Quality Characteristics ...... 15 Study Area Municipalities ...... 15 Franklin County ...... 15 Orleans County ...... 17 Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification ...... 19 Eligibility Criteria ...... 19 Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Study Findings ...... 21 Eligibility ...... 21

Page iii

Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Table of Contents

Free‐flowing Character ...... 22 Free‐flowing Character by Segment ...... 23 Outstandingly Remarkable Values ...... 26 Scenic and Recreational ORVs ...... 26 Swimming Holes ...... 27 Fishing ...... 27 Paddling ...... 27 Natural Resource ORVs ...... 31 Geology ...... 31 Waterfalls, Cascades and Gorges ...... 33 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species and Communities ...... 35 Historic and Cultural ORVs ...... 38 Archeological Sites ...... 38 Bridges ...... 40 Classification ...... 42 Chapter 4: Suitability ...... 45 Suitability Criteria ...... 45 Existing Protections ...... 46 Scenic and Recreational Protections ...... 48 Natural Resource Protections ...... 49 Water Quality Protections ...... 50 Historic and Cultural Protections ...... 56 Local Support ...... 58 Management Framework ...... 58 Designation Effects ...... 59 General Effects of the Partnership Model ...... 59 Effects on Dams ...... 60 Summary of General Findings on Suitability ...... 62 Segment‐by‐Segment Suitability Findings ...... 62 Chapter 5: Environmental Assessment ...... 67 Introduction ...... 67 Project Description ...... 68 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 68 Alternatives ...... 69

Page iv

Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Table of Contents

Alternative A. No Action ...... 70

Alternative B. Full Designation ...... 70 Features Common to the No Action and Full Designation Alternatives ...... 72 Alternatives Considered and Rejected Prior to the Wild and Scenic Study ...... 72 Identification of Environmentally Preferable Alternative ...... 73 Affected Environment ...... 73 Impact of Alternatives...... 73 Impact of Alternatives ‐ Tables ...... 75 Impact of Alternatives ‐ Discussion ...... 80 Cumulative Impacts ...... 81 Public Involvement, Consultations and Coordination ...... 82 Local Support for the Management Plan and Wild and Scenic Designation ...... 86 Preparers and Contributors ...... 86 List of Recipients ...... 87

Page v

Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Table of Contents

Maps ......

Wild and Scenic Rivers of New England ...... 4 The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Area ...... 12 Study Area Segments ...... 13 Tributaries, 3rd Order or Larger, in the Study Area ...... 14 Land Use in the Study Area ...... 16 Dams and hydroelectric power facilities ...... 22 Scenic and Recreational ORVs ...... 28 Natural Resource ORVs ...... 32 Highest Water Quality...... 34 Historic and Cultural ORVs ...... 39 Covered Bridges in Montgomery, VT ...... 42 Segments Proposed for Designation ...... 65 Alternative B ‐ NPS and Environmentally Preferred Alternative...... 71 Appendices ...... 89 Appendix 1. Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Study Act ...... Appendix 2. Town Meeting Results on Designation ...... Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters ...... Appendix 4. Outreach and Education Examples ...... Appendix 5. Hydroelectric Projects ......

Page vi

Summary – Principal Findings the Village of Enosburg Falls, the current project owner. The project boundary includes a 4.3 mile Eligibility segment upstream of the dam that, while riverine in appearance, is under the influence of the dam, leaving The Naonal Park Service (NPS) concludes that two the 4.7 miles of the Missisquoi presently influenced by segments of the upper Missisquoi River, all of the the hydroelectric facility in Enosburg Falls unsuitable Trout River, and those tributaries evaluated are for designaon. Should the project boundary ever be eligible for designaon into the Naonal Wild and reduced, the upstream 4.3 mile segment would be Scenic Rivers System based on their free‐flowing suitable. A 3.8 mile segment in Lowell is also found condion and the presence of one or more eligible but presently unsuitable based on the level of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Short segments of community support at this me. The Missisquoi and the Missisquoi River are found to be ineligible due to Trout River tributaries were found eligible for their lack of free‐flowing character due to designaon due to their free‐flowing character and hydroelectric facilies. The Outstandingly Remarkable ORVs; however, they were not evaluated for suitability Values (ORVs) described in this Study Report (Report) based on a desire to move forward with designaon of are Scenic and RecreaƟonal, Natural Resource, and the mainstem of the Rivers, and ming constraints on Historic and Cultural, all of which are supported by the Study. They were not proposed for consideraon healthy water quality in the watershed. at Town Meeng votes.

ClassificaƟon Addional findings of suitability include:  Exisng local, state, and federal regulatory and The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides for three non‐regulatory protecons applicable to the upper possible classificaons of eligible river segments: wild, Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are found to scenic and recreaƟonal. The criteria disnguishing adequately protect the rivers consistent with the these classificaons are based on the degree of human purposes of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The influence and access to these rivers. Based on Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic applicable criteria, the Naonal Park Service (NPS) has Management Plan developed as part of the Study assigned a preliminary classificaon of recreaƟonal to provides an appropriate management framework the segments of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers for the long term management and protecon of that are eligible for designaon. Some segments likely the waterways.

could have been classiﬁed as scenic; however,  Exisng regulaons at the federal level in Canada recreaƟonal was the best classiﬁcaon for the enre and the Province of Québec were also reviewed to proposed designaon. assess applicable protecons for the upper

Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. According to Suitability Vermont Department of Environmental

Conservaon (DEC) staff, the agricultural The Naonal Park Service concludes that regulaons are more stringent in Québec than approximately 35.1 miles of the upper Missisquoi and Vermont, and localies have strong regulaons on 11.0 miles of the Trout River are currently eligible and riverine and lakeshore buffer acvies. suitable for designaon. Two short segments of the Addionally, Canada’s partnership with the Lake upper Missisquoi River are found to meet the Champlain Basin Program and the seeming lack of standards of eligibility but are currently found addional hydroelectric potenal in the North unsuitable. Designaon would end in Enosburg Falls Missisquoi River (the poron that runs through upstream of the hydroelectric dam project area which Canada locally called the Missisquoi du Nord) is presently unsuitable for designaon based on FERC indicate sufficient measures in place in Canada to licensing for hydropower generaon and the wishes of protect the Missisquoi in the long term.

Page 1

 Based upon the official record of endorsement level. from local cizens, local governing bodies, and local and regional organizaons in the eight If the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are municipalies, it is concluded that there is designated, the Naonal Park Service concludes that substanal support for designaon under the Wild the Management Plan would serve as the and Scenic Rivers Act based on the Partnership comprehensive rivers management plan required Wild and Scenic Rivers model. under Secon 3(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA). It funcons as a companion document to this AlternaƟves Considered Study Report. If the rivers are not added to the Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the This Study Report evaluates one Wild and Scenic River Management Plan will sll serve to provide insight for designaon alternave in addion to the ‘no acon’ state and local partners working to manage and AlternaƟve A. protect the special values of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. AlternaƟve B: Full DesignaƟon. This alternave would designate all segments of the upper Missisquoi Support for DesignaƟon and Trout Rivers found to meet the criteria for eligibility and suitability. This total designaon length At their Vermont Town Meeng Day (either March 4 would be 35.1 miles of the upper Missisquoi River and or March 5, 2013), eight of the nine municipalies 11.0 miles of the Trout River. This alternave would (Berkshire, Enosburgh/Enosburg Falls, Montgomery, designate the upper Missisquoi River from the Richford, Troy/North Troy, and Wesield) voted to Wesield/Lowell Town Line to Canada (excluding the seek Wild and Scenic designaon based on the property and project areas of the Troy and North Troy Management Plan. Only the Town of Lowell voted not hydroelectric facilies) and from Canada to the project to support designaon at this me. In addion, many boundary of the Enosburg Falls dam; and the enre local and state partnership organizaons expressed Trout River. This alternave is idenfied as the their support for designaon as well. Municipalies preferable alternave based on eligibility, suitability, voted on the following arcle: provisions for the maximum protecon to free‐flowing To see if the voters of the Town of ______will peon rivers values consistent with the purposes of the Wild the Congress of the United States of America that the and Scenic Rivers Act, and based on the documented upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers be designated as Wild support of local cizens, organizaons and state river and Scenic Rivers with the understanding that such management stakeholders. designaon would be based on the locally‐developed

rivers Managementd Plan an would not involve federal Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan acquision or management of lands.

Development of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Partnership Wild and Scenic River DesignaƟon Management Plan (Management Plan) has been one of the primary tasks of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Commiee (Study Study was conducted based on the established model Commiee). The Management Plan is the product of of the Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers. All an extensive collaboraon effort between the Study members of the Study Commiee thought that this Commiee, local cizens, resource and regional model would work best in their communies. During experts, state agencies, volunteer partnership the course of the Study, the Study Commiee organizaons and more. The Management Plan confirmed its preference for the Partnership model, contains the vision and strategies for protecng and and rejected any alternave model which increased enhancing the Wild and Scenic River values idenfied federal management or acquision of lands (including as important at the local, regional, state or naonal the formaon of a Naonal Park).

Page 2

Chapter 1. Background

This chapter provides an introducƟon to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study. It includes a review of the project’s history, the Study strategy and process, the principal parƟcipants, and the major Study products and accomplishments. Secor

Ken

by The Wild and Scenic Rivers Program ﬂowing condion, and that they and their

immediate environments shall be Photo The Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System was protected for the benefit and enjoyment established by Congress in 1968 to protect certain of present and future generaons. The outstanding rivers from the harmful effects of new Congress declares that the established federal projects such as dams and hydroelectric naonal policy of dam and other facilies. Since then 203 rivers or river segments construcon at appropriate secons of totaling over 11,000 miles have been protected the rivers of the United States needs to be naonwide. To be considered “Wild and Scenic” a complemented by a policy that would river must be free‐flowing and have at least one preserve other selected rivers or secons river‐related outstanding natural, cultural, or thereof in their free‐flowing condion to recreaonal resource value. The Congressional protect the water quality of such rivers declaraon of policy in the Wild and Scenic Rivers and to fulfill other vital naonal Act (16 U.S.C. 1271‐1287) states: conservaon purposes.

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers There are only eight designated Wild and Scenic of the Naon which, with their immediate River segments located in New England: the environments, possess outstandingly Eightmile and upper Farmington in Conneccut; remarkable scenic, recreaonal, geologic, the Allagash in Maine; the Sudbury‐Assabet‐ ﬁsh and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other Concord, Taunton, and Wesield in Massachuses; similar values, shall be preserved in free‐ and the Lamprey and Wildcat in New Hampshire. In addion to the upper Missisquoi and Trout

Page 3

Chapter 1. Background

Rivers in Vermont, there is an ongoing study of the lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook in Conneccut.

Each river designated into the naonal system receives permanent protecon from federally licensed or assisted dams, diversions, channelizaon or other water projects that would have a direct and adverse effect on its free‐flowing condion, water quality, or Outstandingly Remarkable Values, or, for projects outside the designated segments, that would invade the segments or unreasonably diminish the segment’s fish, wildlife, scenic, or recreaonal resources. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act explicitly prohibits any new hydropower dam and related facilies licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on or directly affecng a designated river segment. The determinaon of a proposed federally assisted water resource project’s or FERC‐licensed hydropower project’s potenal impacts on the river’s “outstandingly remarkable” values, water quality, and free‐flowing condion is made by the federal river administering agency, in this case the Naonal Park Service. Figure 1. There are eight designated rivers in New England Studies under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) (lead administrators in parentheses): Allagash, ME (State of can bring addional local benefits such as the Maine); Lamprey, NH (Naonal Park Service); Wildcat Brook, preparaon of an advisory Management Plan, NH (U.S. Forest Service); Concord, Sudbury, and Assabet Rivers, MA (Naonal Park Service); Taunton, MA research studies, and cooperaon among numerous (Naonal Park Service); Wesield, MA (Commonwealth of river stakeholders. River designaon may bring Massachuses); Eightmile, CT (Naonal Park Service); presge and recognion to the region and can boost Farmington, CT (Naonal Park Service). Other than the the local economy through tourism, possible funding upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, the Lower Farmington River through the Naonal Park Service, matching grants, in‐ and Salmon Brook are under study in Conneccut. The five kind support, and volunteer assistance. rivers administered by the Naonal Park Service are Partnership Rivers.

Before a river can be added to the Naonal Wild and measures such as are documented in the Management Scenic Rivers System, it must be found both eligible Plan.

and suitable. To be eligible, the river must be 1) free‐ Local residents, leaders, and organizaons must show flowing and 2) possess at least one river‐related strong support of their intent to parcipate in the long Outstandingly Remarkable Value such as exceponal ‐term protecon of the river. The eligibility and scenery, fisheries, and wildlife, water quality, or suitability analyses are presented in the chapters that cultural resources. The suitability determinaon is follow. based on factors such as public support for Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers, once designated, designaon versus conflicng river uses (e.g., rely on pre‐exisng local and state regulaons and hydropower development), evidence of adequate management which connue even if designaon exisng resource protecon, and lasng protecon occurs.

Page 4

Chapter 1. Background

Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic SEC. 5101. MISSISQUOI AND TROUT RIVERS Study History and Methods STUDY. (a) DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.—Secon 5(a) of Preauthorizaon the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: In 2004, Missisquoi River Basin Associaon (MRBA) ‘‘(140) MISSISQUOI AND TROUT RIVERS, Chair John Lile and Treasurer Wendy Sco aended VERMONT.—The approximately 25‐mile segment a River Rally conference and learned about the Wild of the upper Missisquoi from its headwaters in and Scenic Rivers program. Their interest was piqued Lowell to the Canadian border in North Troy, the when they learned that Vermont has no Wild and approximately 25‐mile segment from the Scenic Rivers. They felt the Missisquoi River, should Canadian border in East Richford to Enosburg be considered for designaon. There began a 5‐year Falls, and the approximately 20‐mile segment of effort, primarily on the part of MRBA Board members the Trout River from its headwaters to its John Lile, Anne McKay and Chris O’Shea, of working confluence with the Missisquoi River.’’ with Selectboards, community members, and the (b) STUDY AND REPORT.—Secon 5(b) of the Vermont Congressional delegaon to garner support Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) is for a study to determine the eligibility of the amended by adding at the end the following: Missisquoi and Trout Rivers for inclusion in the ‘‘(19) MISSISQUOI AND TROUT RIVERS, Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. MRBA VERMONT.—Not later than 3 years aer the date members explored the Partnership Rivers model, and on which funds are made available concluded it would be a good fit for the region. Ten to carry out this paragraph, the Secretary of the municipalies (Berkshire, Town of Enosburgh, Village Interior shall— of Enosburg Falls, Jay, Lowell, Montgomery, Village of ‘‘(A) complete the study of the Missisquoi and North Troy, Richford, Wesield, and the Town of Troy) Trout Rivers, Vermont, described in subsecon (a) presented leers of support for authorizaon and (140); and parcipaon in the Study. ‘‘(B) submit a report describing the results of that study to the appropriate commiees of Legislaon Introduced to and passed by Congress Congress.’’. (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— The Vermont Congressional delegaon consisng of There are authorized to be appropriated such Representave Peter Welch and Senators Patrick sums as are necessary to carry out this secon. Leahy and Bernard Sanders introduced legislaon H.R. 146 to Congress to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Commiee Formed Act to include the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers as Study rivers. This Study was conducted under the principles of Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers by the Naonal This legislaon became part of the Omnibus Public Park Service in partnership with the locally‐appointed Land Management Act of 2009, and was signed on Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic March 30, 2009 by President Obama as Public Law 111 Study Commiee and other local and state ‐11. Title V, Subtle B, Secon 5101 of the act amends stakeholders. the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to authorize a Study of three segments of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Vermont and reads as follows. Study is a partnership of organizaons and official appointees from the Study towns who have PUBLIC LAW 111–11—MAR. 30, 2009 volunteered their me since 2009 to represent their Subtle B—Wild and Scenic Rivers Studies communies. The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers

Page 5

Chapter 1. Background

Research and Analysis of potential Study Committee Outreach and Outstandingly Remarkable Values Education includes presentations guided by Study Committee and events to receive public input

Study Committee identifies protection goals, threats, existing resource protections, gaps in protection and recommended management strategies

Community Open Houses, Town Detailed education for & feedback Selectboard and Conservation from local and state partners, Commission Meetings and more to further Outreach and Education solicit public input about Wild & Scenic designation

Final Management Plan Drafting

Outreach prior to Town Town/Village Votes NPS Drafts Study Report Meeting Votes, March 2013

Recommendation and request for designation

Figure 2. Wild and Scenic Study Process Flow Chart.

Figure 3. Vermont geology expert Barry Doolan discusses the geology of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers with the Study Commiee at a monthly meeng. Photo by Shana Stewart Deeds.

Page 6

Chapter 1. Background

Wild and Scenic Study Commiee recognizes the about the resources of the upper Missisquoi and Trout importance of connuing local control of river Rivers. The Study Commiee sought knowledge from management on rivers such as the Missisquoi and consultants, academic instuons, local experts, and Trout that ﬂow predominantly through private lands. State agencies to idenfy potenal ORVs. The results During the Study it brought community members of the research helped to produce a clear picture of together in idenfying, protecng, managing and the status of the potenal ORVs, as well as idenfying potenally enhancing local river resources. The exisng protecons for the potenal ORVs and the membership of the Study Commiee is listed in the management outcomes resulng from these introducon of this Report. protecons. Major research was undertaken during the Wild and Scenic Study to idenfy ORVs, develop Study Commiee Meengs management schemes, and help determine eligibility and suitability of the upper Missisquoi and Trout In addion to wring the Management Plan, the long‐ Rivers for designaon. term goal of the Study Commiee is to encourage, through educaon and outreach, planning at the Potenal ORVs were idenﬁed in each of the local, regional and state levels which ulizes the following categories (though some resources belong in informaon and voluntary recommendaons outlined more than one category): Scenic and RecreaƟonal, in the Management Plan regardless of the outcome Natural Resource and Historic and Cultural. Each ORV of designaon. was described by addressing the following:

The Study Commiee rotated its regular meengs, on the third Thursday of each month, among the ten towns and villages in the Study area. All meengs were run by consensus and were adversed, and open to the public. Votes, when required, were approved by a majority of the oﬃcially‐appointed representaves present. March 2013

Management Plan Development

The Management Plan was developed over a period of four years, beginning with the formaon of the Study Commiee and the hiring of the Study Coordinator in late 2009, with the technical and ﬁnancial assistance of the Naonal Park Service. First the Commiee, along with input from local, state, and federal experts, idenﬁed recreaon, natural and cultural values important to the local communies that would become the focus of Management Plan development and Wild and Scenic River eligibility determinaons.

The NPS agrees with the Study Commiee’s ﬁndings regarding potenal ORVs which, along with free‐ ﬂowing character and water quality, formed the Figure 4. Please see the Upper Missisquoi and Trout backbone of the Study’s invesgaons. The Study Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Management Plan for more Commiee worked to capture the local knowledge detailed informaon.

Page 7

Chapter 1. Background

 individual resources and their unique, outstanding  Rotang displays with Wild and Scenic informaon or remarkable aributes available in town clerk oﬃces, town libraries and

 protecon goals for these resources schools, farmer’s markets, local fesvals and fairs

 exisng protecons for these resources (local,  Informaon distributed at town meengs and state and federal protecons) through landowner mailings  potenal threats to these resources  Summer newsleers created and distributed at  gaps in protecons based on these threats events, local venues, and through river‐front  opportunies for acon or management landowner mailings recommendaons idenfied for each resource  Newspaper arcles and ads presented informaon The idenficaon of potenal ORVs, management on the Wild and Scenic Study and protecon research, and public engagement that ulmately culminated in the Management Plan were  A traveling Power Point presentaon developed all conducted with the acve parcipaon and and presented at meengs of various local and technical assistance of Naonal Park Service Wild and State organizaons Scenic River staff to ensure that needs and  requirements of the Wild and Scenic River Study, and  Paddles held on all easily navigable secons of the potenal future Wild and Scenic River designaon, upper Missisquoi were being met.   Informaonal potlucks held The Management Plan provides a roadmap for the residents, and local, regional and state stakeholders  A film series occurred in each county to enhance exisng measures. The ways stakeholders can build on, augment, fill gaps or otherwise improve  Online outreach occurred on Facebook, the Study the exisng management tools to beer protect the website and blog, and through SurveyMonkey Wild and Scenic River values of the Missisquoi and  Trout Rivers were idenfied by the local community  Commiee meengs taped and played on public through the Study process and discussed in the access television Management Plan.

 Resource review at meengs invited Study Commiee Outreach and Educaon knowledgeable speakers such as:

The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Staci Pomeroy, from the VT ANR’s Department Scenic Study Commiee has posted a yearly summary of Environmental Conservaon ‐ Watershed of accomplishments on the webpage Management Division, River Program, set up (www.vtwsr.org) lisng the types of educaon and the river demonstraon known as a ﬂume, outreach acvies completed by the Commiee. The and Dori Barton from Arrowwood following is an abbreviated list of projects completed Environmental discussed the geomorphology by the Study Commiee: of the Study rivers

 Monthly Study Commiee meengs adversed Walter Opuszynski from the Northern Forest and open to the public Canoe Trail discussed the trail and speciﬁcally the secon along the Missisquoi River

Page 8

Chapter 1. Background

John Lile, Keith Sampietro and Ken Secor A major outreach and educaon eﬀort was conducted presented photos and details of paddling throughout the ten municipalies in the Study area adventures including acve events such as river fesvals, tree planng, river cleanups, school educaon on Mike Manahan and Parma Jewe shared their macroinvertebrates and paddling as well as ﬁshing experience informaon disseminated through print media, radio Janice Geraw from the Enosburgh Historical and television. The Outreach subcommiee worked Society, Sam Thurston from the Lowell to make the outreach broad enough to engage and Historical Society, and Sco Perry from the inform the maximum number of local residents, and Montgomery Historical Society discussed local gather input about the river resources they value. history at Commiee meengs Meengs, presentaons, workshops, booths at events,

Barry Doolan and Stephen Wright from UVM newsleers, posters, newspaper arcles, outreach discussed local bedrock and glacial geology through local organizaons, mailings, and the Study website were all venues for outreach. Some examples Rich Langdon from VT ANR’s Department of of outreach are included in the appendices at the end Environmental Conservaon ‐ Watershed of this Report. Management Division and Bernie Peintka from VT’s Fish and Wildlife Department discussed Study Commiee Recommends Designaon Vermont’s ﬁsh populaons

Ben Gabos, Laurie DiPietro and Sylvia Jensen On October 18, 2012, the Study Commiee from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture unanimously voted in favor of recommending the discussed local water quality protecons and designaon of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers into the projects on farms Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Study Commiee supported the decision that designaon as Bobby Farlice‐Rubio from the Fairbanks Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers, based on Museum discussed Abenaki history along the implementaon of the Management Plan, through a rivers locally‐based Wild and Scenic Commiee (like the NPS representaves discussed designaon and Study Commiee), can be an important contributor to its effects on hydropower at a Commiee the rivers and adjacent communies. This Partnership meeng in Lowell with many local community approach has proven successful in the neighboring members present New England states and there is no evidence of an unwanted or heavy federal presence. With the  Leading up to Town Meengs numerous support of the Naonal Park Service, these findings newspaper arcles appeared in local papers, became part of the presentaon of Study outcomes WCAX TV aired an interview about the that preceded and formed the basis of Town Meeng designaon, VPR’s Vermont Edion interviewed votes in parcipang Study communies, and the Study Coordinator, & informaonal postcards determined the proposed upper Missisquoi and Trout were sent to all residents in the Study area River segments listed as eligible and suitable for designaon.  A short video produced by the Study Commiee was viewed at most Town Meengs and included a Town Meeng Vote flyover of the area proposed for designaon and interviews of Study Commiee members and the The Study Commiee’s recommendaon for NPS designaon and supporng the Management Plan was presented in an arcle at Town Meengs in March

Page 9

Chapter 1. Background

2013 following a public comment period. This arcle read as follows:

To see if the voters of the Town of ______will peon the Congress of the United States of America that the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers be designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers with the understanding that such designaon would be based on the locally‐developed rivers Management Plan and would not involve federal acquision or management of lands.

Favorable votes demonstrated local support for designaon by Congress with the intenon that designaon would not bring addional federal acquision or management of lands. Berkshire, Enosburgh/Enosburg Falls, Montgomery, Richford, Troy/North Troy, and Wesield all voted in favor of peoning Congress to include the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers as components of the Naonal Wild and Scenic River System. The voters of Lowell did not support designaon at this me. The Selectboard of the Town of Jay, which parcipated as a part of the Study, decided not to bring the vote to their Town Meeng despite the fact that Jay Branch (a tributary to the Missisquoi River) is eligible for designaon because the Study Commiee decided not to include tributaries in their recommendaon for designaon at this me.

Page 10

Chapter 2. Description of the Study Area

This chapter describes the area of Study including: the four segments in the Study, the regional seng, the land use, and the municipalies within the Study area. Moriarty

Dan

by Descripon of the Study Area The Study area includes 25 miles of the Missisquoi from Lowell to Canada, 25 miles of the

Photo The Missisquoi and Trout Rivers flow through Missisquoi from Richford to Enosburg Falls, and 20 miles of the Trout River from Montgomery to East mixed forests, working landscapes and small Berkshire. villages in northern Vermont. The Study rivers border the northern Green Mountains, some of reaches. The varied fish habitat and relave ease Vermont’s highest peaks. of access to many secons of rivers and streams create significant opportunies for recreaonal The land use in the Missisquoi River watershed is fishing in the Missisquoi watershed. The Missisquoi 66% forested, 25% agricultural, and 6% urban. The River and its many tributaries are also popular for Trout River watershed is 84% forested, 7% boang, swimming and wildlife viewing, and agricultural and 3% urbanized. Land use provide an important water resource for human informaon retrieved from Vermont Center for use including drinking water and agricultural needs. Geographic Informaon (VCGI) land use layers. PUBLIC LAW 111–11 (MAR. 30, 2009) required the The Missisquoi and Trout Rivers and their study of the following river segments: tributaries provide many resources to the [Segment 1] The approximately 25‐mile communies through which they flow including segment of the upper Missisquoi from its cultural, scenic, recreaonal, and water resource headwaters in Lowell to the Canadian values. For example, these rivers support a diverse border in North Troy (including the East fishery, with a mix of high elevaon cold‐water Branch of the Missisquoi River tributary). streams as well as slower‐flowing warm water [Segment 2] The approximately 25‐mile

Page 11

Chapter 2. Description of the Study Area

Area.

Study

Scenic

and

Wild

Rivers

Trout

and

Missisquoi

Upper

The Figure 5. Figure 5.

Page 12

Chapter 2. Description of the Study Area

segment from the Canadian border in East forests. There are several riffles and water features in Richford to Enosburg Falls (to the dam in this secon, most notably Big Falls in North Troy. Big Enosburg Falls). Falls is the largest undammed waterfall in Vermont [Segment 3] The 20‐mile segment of the and is part of Big Falls State Park. Once the river flows Trout River from its headwaters to its over Big Falls and through its gorge, it passes into confluence with the Missisquoi River Canada and eventually reenters the United States in (including the South Branch of the Trout River Richford, VT. There are many points of access along tributary). the river in this stretch for recreaon including boang, fishing and swimming. In addion, based on local interest of the Study Commiee, local communies, and stakeholders, [Segment 2: Border/Richford to Enosburg Falls] The major tributaries (typically 3rd order and larger) were Study area also includes the Missisquoi River aer assessed for their water quality, contribuon to potenal ORVs, and management significance. Collecvely, these tributaries of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, as detailed later in this Report, are referred to as Segment 4.

[Segment 4] The tributaries of the upper Segment 2 Missisquoi and Trout Rivers.

Segment by Segment Study Area Descripon

[Segment 1: Headwaters in Lowell to North Troy/ Canadian Border] The Study area begins in Lowell, VT, on the northern side of Hazen’s Notch Road. The Missisquoi River flows north from Lowell through the reentry into the U.S. from Canada in Richford, VT. municipalies of Wesield, Troy and North Troy, VT. The river is larger in this secon, and predominantly This secon of the river meanders through agricultural flows through a working agricultural landscape and fields and forests, and includes rare Serpenne two downtown historic districts in Richford and bedrock outcroppings and silver maple floodplain Enosburg Falls. This segment also borders the Green Mountains as well as local farmlands. This stretch of the Missisquoi is also part of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail and has five official Trail access points. This secon ends in Enosburg Falls.

[Segment 3: Trout River] The Trout River’s headwaters begin in the Town of Montgomery. It ﬂows through Enosburgh before it joins the Missisquoi River in East Berkshire. Agriculture is the dominant land use along the main stem of the Trout River, but the reaches upstream of Montgomery Center are mainly forested. This segment has a high density of waterfalls, swimming Segment 1 holes, and covered bridges.

Page 13

Chapter 2. Description of the Study Area

Segment 4

of Natural Resources. Because of their importance in maintaining the water quality in and providing valuable resources for the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, the tributaries were included in the Study. In addion to maintaining the water quality of the region, they also include notable recreaonal, scenic and cultural features, including swimming holes, waterfalls, and Segment 3 covered bridges, which are potenal Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

The Study Commiee looked at the following tributaries in detail (listed by municipality):

 Berkshire: Berry Brook and Trout Brook  Enosburgh/Enosburg Falls: Beaver Meadow Brook  Jay: Jay Branch  Lowell: Burgess Branch and East Branch of the [Segment 4: Tributaries] Many porons of the Study Missisquoi River rivers and their tributaries have been noted as exhibing high water quality by the Vermont Agency

Page 14

Chapter 2. Description of the Study Area

 Montgomery: Black Falls Brook, Hannah Clark and outlines plans to improving both water quality and Brook, Jay Brook, South Branch of the Trout River, aquac habitat. The Study Commiee and Watershed Tamarack Brook, Wade Brook and West Hill Brook Management Division coordinated eﬀorts with the  Richford: Berry Brook, Black Falls Brook, Loveland common goals of protecng water quality. More Brook and Stanhope Brook informaon may be found in Chapter 4 of this Report.  Troy/North Troy: Beetle Brook and Cook Brook  Wesield: Coburn Brook, Mill Brook, Mineral Study Area Municipalies Spring Brook and Ta Brook. Franklin County The map on page 14 shows the tributaries to the  Berkshire ‐ The Missisquoi River ﬂows through Missisquoi and Trout Rivers which are 3rd order the Town of Berkshire that has a populaon of streams or larger. around 1,400 people (according to the 2000

Census). The current Town Plan was adopted in Regional Seng ‐ Relaon to the Missisquoi River 2010 and describes Berkshire as located in the Basin; Linkage to Lake Champlain and the Missisquoi northeast corner of Franklin County, which is in Naonal Wildlife Refuge turn situated in northwestern Vermont, and is

bounded by the Province of Quebec to the north, The Missisquoi River is the primary tributary of the Town of Franklin to the west, the Town of Missisquoi Bay in Lake Champlain. Missisquoi Bay Richford to the east, and the Town of Enosburgh contains the Missisquoi Naonal Wildlife Refuge, a and the incorporated Village of Enosburg Falls to 6,729 acre area on the Missisquoi River delta that the south. The Town of Berkshire covers more provides important wetland and forest habitat for than forty‐three square miles of land. Berkshire waterfowl, migrang songbirds, many species of is predominantly a rural town lying within the mammals and other wildlife. Although this lower eastern sub‐region of the Northwest Region of secon of the Missisquoi is downstream of the Study Vermont. It is recognized within the Regional area, the quality of water passing through tributaries Plan as one of the most important agricultural and the upstream reaches of the Missisquoi River is towns in Franklin County. crical for maintaining habitat supporve of these

species not to menon human use.  Enosburgh/Enosburg Falls ‐ The Missisquoi River

ﬂows through the Town of Enosburgh (populaon Water Quality Characteriscs ‐ Missisquoi Basin around 2,800) and the Village of Enosburg Falls Watershed Water Quality Management Plan (populaon around 1,500). Enosburgh’s current

Town Plan was approved in 2008 and describes Watershed management is under the purview of the Enosburgh as located in the northwestern part of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources,(ANR) the State of Vermont in Franklin County and is Department of Environmental Conservaon’s bordered by seven towns: Montgomery to the Watershed Management Division. The Division east; Richford to the northeast; Berkshire to the representaves worked in partnership with the north; Franklin to the northwest; Sheldon to the Commiee to provide the most up to date informaon west; Fairﬁeld to the southwest; and Bakersﬁeld on the watershed and water quality issues. to the south. Enosburgh covers a total of 30,925

acres or approximately forty‐eight square miles. During the Wild and Scenic Study, the Watershed The Village of Enosburg Falls is part of the Town Management Division completed the Missisquoi Basin for purposes of the Town Plan and vote at Town Watershed Water Quality Management Plan, which Meeng day regarding Wild and Scenic describes the current state of the Missisquoi River designaon. The Enosburgh Town Plan states Basin, addresses water quality issues in the watershed “The Village...is the primary social and Page 15

Chapter 2. Description of the Study Area

Figure 6. Land use in the Study area. 2006 data, available from NOAA: www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/northeast.html commercial center for the Town. Enosburg Falls as located in the northwestern part of the State has its own Municipal Plan and Planning of Vermont in Franklin County. It is bordered by Commission and conducts all its own business the following eight towns: Richford, Enosburg, separate from the Town. Although a separate and Bakersfield in Franklin County, Belvidere and governmental enty, the Village is included as Eden to the south, and Lowell, Wesield, and Jay part of the Town for the purposes of the Town to the east. Montgomery covers a total of 57 Plan.” The current Village Plan was also adopted square miles. in 2008 and describes Enosburg Falls as located in the northwestern corner of the Town of  Richford‐ The Missisquoi River flows through the Enosburgh in central Franklin County. The Village Town of Richford (populaon around 2,300). The is bounded by the Towns of Berkshire, Franklin, current 2007 Town Plan describes Richford as Sheldon, and Enosburgh. The Village occupies 3.6 around 43 square miles and located in the square miles of land area. northwestern part of the State of Vermont in Franklin County and is bordered by five towns:  Montgomery‐ The Trout Rivers flows through the Jay to the east; Wesield to the southeast; Town of Montgomery (populaon around 1,000). Montgomery to the south; Enosburgh to the Montgomery’s current Town Plan was approved southwest; and Berkshire to the west. and adopted in 2010 and describes Montgomery

Page 16

Chapter 2. Description of the Study Area

Orleans County areas include a compact mixture of housing opons, commercial enterprises, public facilies,  Jay– Jay Branch, a major tributary to the and local services. The Town Plan serves as a Missisquoi River ﬂows through the Town of Jay. guidance document for the Select Board and Jay was included in the Study due to the Planning Commission, and as a resource for signiﬁcance of Jay Branch, and the Town’s anyone interested in the future of the Town of locaon between all other Study area Troy and the Village of North Troy.” The Town municipalies. Jay has a populaon of around Plan describes North Troy as around 2 square 521 people (according to the 2000 Census). The miles.

current Town Plan was adopted in 2010 and describes Jay as a rural community of 34 square  Wesield‐ The Missisquoi River flows through the miles. The Town of Jay is bordered by Canada to Town of Wesield that has a populaon of the north and the town of Troy to the East, around 536 people (according to the 2000 Wesield to the South and Richford to the West. Census). Their current Town Plan was adopted in 2009 and describes Wesield as approximately  Lowell‐ The headwaters of the Missisquoi River 40 square miles bordered by five towns: flow through the Town of Lowell that has a Montgomery, Lowell, Troy, Jay, and Richford. populaon of around 879 people and an area of 56 square miles. The current Town Plan was adopted in 2009 and describes Lowell a rural community where forestry is the predominate land use. The Town of Lowell is bordered by seven towns: Albany, Eden, Irasburg, Montgomery, Newport Center, Troy, and Wesield.

 Troy/North Troy ‐ The Missisquoi River ﬂows through the Town of Troy (populaon around 1,700) and the Village of North Troy (populaon around 620). Troy and North Troy have a combined Town Plan. This current Town Plan was approved in 2008 and describes these municipalies as located on the Canadian Border in North Central Vermont in the Northwestern part of Orleans County. The Green Mountains lay to the west and the Vermont Piedmont lies to the east. The Towns of Jay and Wesield border Troy on the west; the Town of Newport borders Troy to the East, and the Town of Lowell borders Troy to the south. Troy covers a total of approximately 36 square miles. The Village of North Troy is part of the Town for the purpose of Town Planning and vong on Wild and Scenic designaon. The Troy Town Plan states “Today, the Village of North Troy and the Hamlet of Troy are the main acvity centers within Troy. Both

Page 17

Page 18

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

Parsons

Jeff

Photo

The purpose of this Chapter is to document Naonal Park Service findings relave to: 1) the “outstandingly remarkable” natural and cultural resource values associated with the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Study Area; 2) the “free‐flowing character” of the study segments; and 3) the preliminary “classificaons” which would be appropriate if the segments are included in the Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Eligibility Criteria Free‐ﬂowing Character

The subsecons below describe the relevant The Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System eligibility (free‐flowing and ORVs) and classificaon is designed to protect eligible “free‐flowing” criteria as set forth in the Wild and Scenic Rivers rivers and secons of rivers that support Act, in the USDA/USDI Interagency Guidelines for significant resource values from the adverse Eligibility, Classificaon, and Management impacts of federally‐assisted water resource of River Areas as published in the Federal projects, such as construcon of new dams. Register on September 7, 1982, and in the The Act’s definion of “free‐flowing” is Technical Report of the Interagency Wild and outlined in Secon 16: Scenic Rivers Coordinang Council on the (b) “Free‐flowing”, as applied to any Wild & Scenic Rivers Study Process, IWSRCC, river or secon of a river, means exisng December 1999. or flowing in natural condion without

Page 19

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

impoundment, diversion, straightening, mining and mineral leasing on public lands; however, rip‐rapping, or other modiﬁcaon of the this is also not relevant as there are not public, federal waterway. The existence, however, of low lands in the proposed designaon. The “outstandingly dams, diversion works, and other minor remarkable” threshold within the Act is designed to be structures at the me any river is proposed interpreted through the professional judgment of the for inclusion in the naonal wild and study team during the Wild and Scenic Study process. scenic rivers system shall not automacally bar its consideraon for such inclusion: The descripons below provide examples to Provided, That this shall not be construed help interpret this “outstandingly remarkable” to authorize, intend, or encourage future eligibility requirement.

construcon of such structures within  Naonally Significant Values: Resource values components of the naonal wild and scenic which are naonally significant clearly meet the rivers system. “outstandingly remarkable” threshold. A naonally significant resource would be rare, A river or river segment can be considered for unique, or exemplary at a naonal scale. For designaon if it is above or below a dam or is example, a recreaonal boang experience that dependent on releases from a dam. Any secon of draws visitors from all over the naon would river with flowing water, even if impounded upstream qualify as a naonally significant recreaonal meets the definion of free‐flowing, as long as exisng resource. flows are sufficient to support flow‐dependent ORVs  Regionally Significant Values: Based upon the and water quality. desirability of protecng a regional diversity of rivers through the naonal system, a river Outstandingly Remarkable Values segment may qualify based on regionally rare, unique or exemplary resource values. The area, To be considered eligible for inclusion in the region, or scale of comparison is not fixed, and Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System a should be defined as that which serves as a basis river segment, together with its adjacent lands, for meaningful comparave analysis; it may vary must support one or more “outstandingly depending on the value being considered. For remarkable” natural, cultural, or recreaonal example, physiographic regions are appropriate resource values. Such resource values must for geologic and biologic resources, while the be directly related to, or dependent upon, the region occupied by a parcular culture is river and its adjacent lands. In order to demonstrate appropriate for archaeological resources. that a resource is river related, they are generally  Values Significant in Aggregate: A river may within ¼ mile of the river, or within another qualify for a given resource value based upon an geographic area as defined by the Study Commiee. aggregate of important values, no one of which Though there is no specific terrestrial boundary would confer eligibility standing alone. For (buffer) recommended for the designaon of the example, a series of unusual and disncve river‐ upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, the NPS is related geologic features may together qualify a commied to protecng Wild and Scenic River values segment as exhibing an “outstandingly wherever they are located. The NPS concluded that remarkable geologic value” even though no one specific boundaries are not necessary as they have element meets the criteria alone. been tradionally delineated to indicate federal acquision limits that are not relevant in this instance The Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinang as there is no federal acquision of land proposed. Council (IWSRCC) has characterized the determinaon These boundaries (buffers) have also been used for as to whether a given resource value is river‐related as permied land uses along WSRs such as limits for based on three criteria. To be river‐related a resource

Page 20

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

value should:  Rivers classiﬁed as recreaonal are those rivers

1) Be located in the river or in its immediate or secons of rivers that are readily accessible by shorelands (generally within ¼ mile on road or railroad, that may have some either side of the river) development along their shorelines, and that may 2) Contribute substanally to the funconing have undergone some impoundment or diversion of the river ecosystem in the past 3) Owe their locaon or existence to the presence of the river Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Study Findings

For the purposes of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Eligibility Rivers Wild and Scenic Study, the Study Commiee and NPS explored all the locally recognized river values [Segment 1: Headwaters in Lowell to North Troy/ and used the above criteria to determine which would Canadian Border] Of the approximately 25‐mile qualify as Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the segment of the upper Missisquoi from its headwaters ten municipalies: Berkshire, Enosburgh/Enosburg in Lowell to the Canadian border in North Troy, 24.3 Falls, Jay, Lowell, Montgomery, Richford, Troy/North miles of the upper Missisquoi River are found eligible Troy, and Wesield. The legislavely authorized study for designaon. The hydroelectric facilies in Troy (0.3 segments as well as the major tributaries in these miles) and North Troy (0.1 miles) make these porons municipalies were established as the geographic of the river ineligible due to their lack of free‐flowing range of consideraon for the Missisquoi and Trout character. ORVs. [Segment 2: Canadian Border/Richford to Enosburg Falls] Of the approximately 25‐mile segment from the Classificaon Canadian border in East Richford to Enosburg Falls, 19.3 miles of the upper Missisquoi River are found The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that eligible for designaon. Eligibility stops at the Route all eligible or designated river segments be classified 108 crossing in Enosburg Falls just upstream of the as wild, scenic, or recreaonal. property boundary of the hydroelectric facility.

[Segment 3: Trout River] Of the 20‐mile segment of These classificaons are based on the the Trout River from its headwaters to its confluence amount of human impact (degree of human influence with the Missisquoi River, the enre 11.0 miles of the and access to these rivers) and dependent on the mainstem of Trout River from the confluence of Jay water quality present at the me of classificaon. The Brook and Wade Brook are eligible for designaon. WSR Act defines these classificaons as follows.  Rivers classified as wild have prisne water [Segment 4: Tributaries] The specific tributaries quality. They are those rivers or secons of rivers listed below were studied in more detail, are free‐ that are free of impoundments and generally flowing and contain ORVs which make them eligible inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or for designaon. Addional unlisted tributaries are shorelines essenally primive and waters expected to be similarly free‐flowing and to have ORVs unpolluted. These represent vesges of primive which would make them eligible for designaon, but America. were not evaluated as a part of the Study.  Rivers classified as scenic are those rivers or secons of rivers that are free of impoundments, Tributaries listed by municipality:

with shorelines or watersheds sll largely  Berkshire: Berry Brook and Trout Brook primive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but  Enosburgh/Enosburg Falls: Beaver Meadow Brook accessible in places by roads.  Jay: Jay Branch

Page 21

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

 Lowell: Burgess Branch and East Branch of the general river‐like characteriscs rather than creang Missisquoi River large, lake‐like impoundments.  Montgomery: Hannah Clark Brook, Jay Brook, South Branch of the Trout River, Wade Brook and Current river flows are adequate to support the in‐ West Brook stream values for which the rivers are being  Richford: Black Falls Brook, Loveland Brook and considered for designaon. River flows are typically Stanhope Brook unaltered on the secons under consideraon for  Troy/North Troy: Beetle Brook, Cook Brook and designaon, and areas where flow is altered, such as Tamarack Brook dams, are excluded from the secon proposed for  Wesield: Coburn Brook, Mill Brook, Mineral designaon. More informaon on flow alteraons Spring Brook and Ta Brook. may be found on the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources website or in the most recent version of the Free‐flowing Character Missisquoi Basin Watershed Water Quality Management Plan. The Study area reaches of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are essenally natural from a free‐flowing The Study assessed the exisng dams on the rivers perspecve. There is no flood control, and dams are with the help of the Agency of Natural Resource’s run‐of‐river with no major dams that control flow Department of Environmental Conservaon’s through storage and release. Exisng dams maintain Streamflow Protecon Coordinator to see if they are

Figure 7. Dams and hydroelectric power facilies within the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Study Area.

Page 22

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

compable with the free‐ﬂowing river condion projects are designed to help maintain river values and necessary for designaon (Figure 7). habitat and recreaonal funcon.

The free‐flowing analysis by segment below includes Free‐flowing condion by segment: assessment of non‐dam infrastructure as well. These data on non‐dam infrastructure are for the reaches of Segment 1: Headwaters in Lowell to North Troy/ the Missisquoi and Trout River proposed for Wild and Canadian Border the 24.7 miles of the Missisquoi Scenic River designaon where the Vermont Agency of River between Lowell and Canada are generally free‐ Natural Resources (ANR), or its consultants, have flowing with the excepon of two short segments in completed fluvial geomorphic assessments, which is the immediate vicinity of two dams (24.3 miles of the most of the proposed area. There are sll some Missisquoi River in Orleans County are found eligible reaches in Berkshire and Enosburgh for which Phase 2 based on the free‐flowing character). The following assessments have not been completed. Fluvial short secons of the Missisquoi are ineligible for geomorphic assessments are widely used in Vermont designaon due to their lack of free‐flowing character. and considered the best, most up‐to‐date, science‐ based approach to river management.  The Troy Hydroelectric project in Troy on the Missisquoi River makes 0.27 miles (1,408 feet) of On the mainstem of the upper Missisquoi River there the Missisquoi River ineligible due to lack of free‐ are approximately 2.7 miles with a history of previous flowing character. This facility has not operated bank stabilizaon, a limited number of bridges (14) since 1998. The project received from the and no culverts. On the Trout River mainstem there Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) an are approximately 1.7 miles with a history of previous exempon (FERC Project Number P‐13381). As of bank stabilizaon, a limited number of bridges (10) October 2012, work is underway on the civil and no culverts. Documented alteraons have a works to restart the project. The NPS and Study minor effect on natural, free‐flowing condions. The Commiee have already indicated to FERC in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) provided wring that this project (including the project a table to the Study Commiee lisng the lands owned by the Chase family) would be infrastructure along the upper Missisquoi and Trout excluded from the designated area, and that its Rivers on September 6, 2013. This alteraon proposed operaon as a run‐of‐river facility will constutes the “protect and enhance” baseline against not have an adverse impact to potenal Wild and which future proposals would be evaluated if the Scenic River areas upstream or down. A leer to rivers are designated. Despite these projects, the this effect is included in the Appendix 5 of this rivers remain mostly in their natural condion. This Report. list, and the geomorphic assessments, detail the man‐ made infrastructure and channel alteraons on record  The North Troy Project (formerly Missisquoi River at the Vermont of Natural Resources (ANR) (no digital Technologies) on the Missisquoi River in the informaon from Enosburg to Berkshire was available Village of North Troy makes 0.11 miles (585 feet) for bank armoring, but likely is present at some level), of the Missisquoi River ineligible due to lack of and establish a baseline condion for these projects in free‐flowing character. This facility is not‐ the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. The operang and has a FERC exempon (FERC P‐ assessments provide a scienfic basis for analysis of 10172) issued in 1989. The project was acquired any future stabilizaon work, if deemed necessary. As by Missisquoi River Hydro, LLC, and the new in the Trout River example on page 24, if human owners are acvely seeking to renew operaons alteraons must be made to stream channels in at the me of this Report. Designaon would Vermont, a Stream Alteraon Permit is required and have no effect on the exisng FERC exempon for this facility.

Page 23

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

The Trout River Project

The Trout River Project is a one mile reach of the Trout River immediately downstream of Montgomery Center that was restored using natural channel design techniques to protect and preserve agricultural lands, stabilize property values, protect a state highway, and restore the river’s ecological and recreaonal values. This project was completed by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resource’s River Management Secon and other partners using the science of ﬂuvial geomorphology, rather than tradional dredging and armoring, to stabilize the channel.

The project consisted of a number of elements which are listed below:  Rock vanes were built to slow velocies along the bank, collect sediments, and narrow channel width.  A vortex rock weir was constructed across the channel, and keyed into rip‐rap on the right bank along VT Route 118 above the bankfull elevaon. It was built to maintain and deepen the pool at a natural ledge located just downstream to enhance swimming and fish habitat.  Bulk toe rock revetment was installed along a 510 foot secon of the right bank to repair exisng rip‐rap along VT Route 118.  Fish lunker boxes were placed under a 120 foot secon of tradional rip‐rap along the right bank to provide cover for fish along the VT Route 118 highway where revegetaon opons were minimal.  Eight root wad structures were added and repairs were made to exisng root wads along the le bank to protect against further erosion and create scour pockets as fish habitat.  A new channel was constructed to create a stable meander geometry with a radius of curvature of 337 feet.  Earth berms were constructed to close off old channels and help redirect flow into new channel.  A two‐er tree revetment was created to stabilize banks unl revegetaon took hold.  Three earth filled rock covered structures were constructed to block high flows from entering old channels and flood chutes and significantly slow water velocies to allow for sediment deposion.  Three log vanes were installed along the le bank to slow water velocies and enhance sediment deposion in the tree revetments.  Parcipang landowners entered into WHIP (Wildlife Habitat Incenves Program) contracts with the Natural Resource Conservaon Service (NRCS) to maintain a 35 foot wooded buffers along the Trout River for a period of 15 years. This "Morphological Approach" to river management represented a major advancement in thinking in contrast to tradional river management approaches used in Vermont and elsewhere, which were typically short‐term, expensive treatment of erosion‐related symptoms rather than a system‐wide approach. This demonstraon project connues to be used as an educaonal opportunity. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources’ (ANR) Watershed Management Division, River Management Secon, in cooperaon with the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, the NRCS, and the Missisquoi River Basin Associaon have produced and made available educaonal materials, detailing that “...no other river restoraon project in Vermont has been more visited, wrien about, or televised than the Trout River Project...state and federal agencies in Vermont are revamping their river programs to incorporate the techniques and lessons learned on the Trout River…[and landowners] have enthusiascally supported new river stabilizaon techniques that include protecon of both property values and the natural resource values of river corridors.” An online pdf with a full project descripon, with a map of the river reaches restored, may be found at hp://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/docs/report.pdf.

Page 24

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

In 2010, Arrowwood Environmental completed Phase reaches with a history of previous bank stabilizaon 2 Geomorphic Assessment and a River Corridor Plan (2.38 miles), a limited number of bridges (6) and no for the Missisquoi River in Orleans County (Lowell, culverts. This level of alteraon does not render the Wesield, Troy and North Troy) and tributaries in Jay. river ineligible for Wild and Scenic River designaon, On Segment 1 of the upper Missisquoi River there is but does constute the “protect and enhance” 1 approximately /4 mile of known reaches with a baseline against which future proposals would be history of previous bank stabilizaon (0.28 mile), a evaluated if the rivers are designated. limited number of bridges (8) and no culverts. This level of alteraon does not render the river ineligible Segment 3: the Trout River from its headwaters to its for Wild and Scenic River designaon, but does confluence with the Missisquoi River is free‐flowing constute the “protect and enhance” baseline against and has no dams. The enre 11.0 miles of the which future proposals would be evaluated if the mainstem of the Trout River from the confluence of rivers are designated. Jay Brook and Wade Brook are free‐flowing and eligible for designaon. Segment 2: Canadian Border/Richford to Enosburg Falls 19.3 miles of the Missisquoi River from the In 2007, the Johnson Company completed a Phase 2 Canadian Border downstream to the Route 108 Geomorphic Assessment and River Corridor Plan of bridge are found eligible based on the free‐flowing the Trout River; this included 20 reaches in the Trout character. Eligibility stops at the Route 108 crossing watershed (Montgomery, Berkshire, Enosburgh and in Enosburg Falls just upstream of the property Richford) with bridge and culvert assessments within boundary of the hydroelectric facility. these reaches. On the Trout River there are three known reaches with a history of previous bank The free‐flowing character of the lowermost 4.7 miles stabilizaon (1.7 miles), a limited number of bridges of this segment of Missisquoi River remains despite (ten), and no culverts. Of these ten bridges, eight are the inclusion this secon in the FERC project in the digital database provided by VTrans and the boundary of the Enosburg Falls hydroelectric project. Vermont ANR for bridges and culverts. The two addional bridges crossing the river are 1) a  The Enosburg Falls Hydroelectric Facility (also snowmobile bridge in Montgomery Center, and 2) a known as the Kendall Plant) on the Missisquoi temporary steel bypass bridge located beside the River is operang and licensed by FERC (FERC P‐ currently closed Longley [Covered] Bridge that is 2905, license expires 2023). The river segment in awaing repairs. It is of note that there are three the immediate vicinity of this project is found addional bridges associated with, but not on, the ineligible for designaon due to the lack of free‐ Trout River that are important, both historically and flowing character. A 4.7 mile segment, though culturally. The South Branch of the Trout River had contained within the FERC project boundary of the Hectorville [Covered] Bridge that used to cross this hydroelectric facility (from Sampsonville to Gibou Road over a tributary, which has been replaced the Route 108 bridge crossing), is found eligible with a concrete bridge and removed to offsite storage. for designaon based on the free‐flowing The Hutchins [Covered] Bridge is on the South Branch character. Suitability findings on this segment are of the Trout River (a tributary). West Hill Brook discussed in Chapter 4 of this Report. (another tributary) has the West Hill [Covered] Bridge as well. In 2008, Phase 2 Geomorphic Assessment was completed for the Missisquoi main stem in Berkshire Addionally, there is a one mile reach of the Trout in Richford, the Jay Branch (Troy/Jay), and Mud Creek River downstream of Montgomery Center that (Troy/Newport). On Segment 2 of the upper contains a number of structures including tree 1 Missisquoi River there are approximately 2 /4 miles of revetments, rock weirs, earthen berms, and log vanes

Page 25

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

that were installed in 1999‐2000 by the Vermont The Wild and Scenic Study Commiee was tasked with Agency of Natural Resources’ (ANR) Watershed idenfying and researching potenal ORVs associated Management Division, River Management Secon as with the waterways as required by the Wild and Scenic part of a natural channel design restoraon project Rivers Act. Not just one, but several potenal ORVs that applied the methods of fluvial geomorphology to were idenfied on the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. stabilize the channel rather than tradional dredging The examinaon of these resources (as described in and armoring (see the Text Box on the page 24 for a detail in the Management Plan and briefly below) was detailed descripon). This level of alteraon does not accomplished through substanal research that was render the river ineligible for Wild and Scenic River conducted prior to and during the Study, and included designaon, but does constute the “protect and evaluaon of the significance of the resources within a enhance” baseline against which future proposals state‐wide and regional context by means of would be evaluated if the rivers are designated. consultaons with experts and professionals. The Naonal Park Service parcipated in this process and Segment 4: the Tributaries of the upper Missisquoi provided technical assistance to ensure that the and Trout Rivers are generally free‐flowing in nature idenficaon and characterizaon of potenal ORVs and eligible for designaon. There are no major dams would form an adequate basis to establish defined on these tributaries, the other small dams in the Study ORVs for the purpose of this Report and potenal area located on tributaries are outside of the area future Wild and Scenic River designaon. currently under consideraon for designaon. Those dams that exist on tributaries are very small, without The resources fall within the following categories: impoundment, and do no impact the free‐flowing Scenic and Recreaonal, Natural Resource and nature of the tributaries. Historic and Cultural.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values The ORVs which make the upper Missisquoi and Trout River segments eligible for inclusion in the Naonal The following describes the resources supported by Wild and Scenic Rivers System are described in the the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers that are following pages of this Report. More specific deemed to meet the “Outstandingly informaon about individual examples of ORVs, as Remarkable” threshold for Wild and Scenic well as an analysis of resources at the watershed scale designaon. More detailed informaon on these and a list by municipality, may be found in the resource values may be found in the Upper Missisquoi companion document: Upper Missisquoi and Trout and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Management Plan Rivers Management Plan. and on the Study website at www.vtwsr.org. All of the resources cited contribute to the overall eligibility of Scenic and Recreaonal ORVs the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers for designaon. Not all river reaches in the study area support all Scenic and recreaonal opportunies, which abound noted outstanding values, but there is no stretch of on the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, consistently rise to river which does not contribute to the viability the top of the list of outstanding resources idenfied of the whole. In fact, it is worth nong that the water by the communies in the Study area. Community quality in the watershed has a direct impact on these members are ed to these rivers through their Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for which the enjoyment of recreaonal acvies, especially rivers are eligible for designaon, and should be canoeing and kayaking, fishing and hunng, protected as such. Also, some ORVs overlap into swimming, hiking and wildlife viewing. According to mulple categories; they are listed here under the the Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail website the scenic heading currently considered most appropriate. views of the Missisquoi are a draw for those using the trail, arsts are inspired to create landscape painngs

Page 26

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

here and wildflowers and wildlife may be seen from  Troy Four Corners Swimming Hole, Jay Branch, the trail. east of Route 101, Troy  Snider Brook Swimming Holes, Snider Brook, Swimming Holes Wesield The numerous swimming holes in the Study area are a  Ta Brook Falls Swimming Holes, Ta Brook, popular desnaon for locals and visitors alike. Wesield Yankee magazine featured the Three Holes swimming area (on the Trout River in Montgomery) as the Best Fishing Local Secret and swimming hole in New England in Fishing and hunng were historically important along their May/June 2010 Issue: “As the Trout River sluices the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers with the Abenaki down from the hills, it fills three natural basins deep in peoples and remain important to the area residents on the woods, creang the swimming‐hole trifecta: the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. The rivers hold diamond‐clear water, flat rocks for sunbathing, and quality fish habitat throughout the Study area, freedom from raucous crowds.” The countless pools supporng both warm‐ and cold‐water fisheries and falls of the Trout River in Montgomery have (especially nave fish populaons of Brook trout). The created many swimming areas in the Town. There are upper reaches of the Missisquoi and the enrety of also popular swimming holes in the towns of Lowell, the Trout River offer excellent trout fishing, and serve Wesield and Troy. Not only are many swimming as a desnaon for anglers across the region. The holes in existence because of the unique geology Trout River and many of its tributaries support (Natural Resource ORV) in the Study area, but are also especially healthy cold water fisheries. Many well‐ important scenic areas and oen provide great fishing. known trout fishing spots overlap with other features Collecvely they are certainly an important ORV of noted in the Management Plan. The Hopkins and regional significance. West Hill Brook covered bridges and swimming holes are desnaons for trout anglers. Black Falls Brook Swimming Holes and Alder Brook are also good fishing spots in the  Black Falls Brook Swimming Holes, Black Falls Study area. Jay Branch, Hanna Clark and Wade Brooks Brook, Montgomery all offer trout fishing in addion to whitewater  Gibou Bridge Swimming Holes, S. Branch Trout paddling opportunies. Fisheries depend on the water River, above and below Gibou Rd., Montgomery quality of the Missisquoi River.  Gray Rocks Swimming Hole, Trout River, Montgomery Paddling  Hippie Hole or Crystal Falls, West Hill Brook, near Canoeing and kayaking opportunies abound along Creamery Covered Bridge, Montgomery the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. The rivers offer  Hutchins and Hectorville Bridges Swimming Hole, unique experiences for all levels of paddling, from S. Branch Trout River, Montgomery gentle meandering float trips to technical whitewater  Longley Bridge Swimming Hole, Trout River, near runs. The Study rivers wind their way through rolling Longley Bridge, Montgomery forested hills, towering floodplain forests, and  Montgomery School House Swimming Hole, Trout picturesque working farm fields. With approximately River, north of Montgomery Center, Montgomery 25 disnct access sites along the 70 miles of the Study  Three Holes Swimming Area, Trout River, rivers, there are ample opportunies for nearly Montgomery everyone to enjoy a day on the river.  Tillotson Mill, Lockwood Brook, Lowell  Twin Falls Swimming Hole, East Branch Missisquoi The Missisquoi River is part of the Northern Forest River, Lowell Canoe Trail (NFCT), which is a 740‐mile, long‐distance  Bakers Falls, Missisquoi River, Troy paddling trail that connects waterbodies from the  Big Falls, Missisquoi River, Troy Adirondack mountains of New York to the unspoiled

Page 27

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

es. municipali

area

Study

the

within

ORVs

onal Recrea

and

Scenic

map

A Figure 8. Figure 8.

Page 28

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

Figure 9. Featured ORV – The top of Big Falls, the largest undammed falls in Vermont. Photo by Shana Stewart Deeds.

Page 29

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

wilderness of northern Maine. The poron of the several agencies and organizaons that are involved in Study area that joins this naonally significant trail is the Missisquoi Bay Watershed in Canada, i.e., the the Missisquoi River from the Canadian Border in Ministère des Affaires municipals, des régions et de Richford to the downstream end of the Study area in l’Occupaon Territoire (MAMROT); the Ministère de Enosburgh Falls (Secon 5). Walter Opuszynski, l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentaon NFCT’s Trail Director, states that paddlers within the (MAPAQ); the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et Study area work their way from Canada downstream de la Faune (MNRF); the Ministère de la Santé et des through a break in the Green Mountains and a unique Services sociaux; the Ministère des Transports (MTQ) NFCT landscape of verdant farmland. The NFCT has and the Ministère du Développement durable, de found great support from these communies, and an l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP). These obvious desire to respect these waters for their organizaons, along with the Organisme de bassin natural beauty, history, and ecological importance. versant baie Missisquoi (OBVBM) have agreed to NFCT’s paddlers rely on the opportunity to follow the cooperate with the community by: historic travel corridors used by generaons of  connuing educaonal opportunies inhabitants from the Abenaki to early selers to  supporng watershed groups present‐day paddlers. The Missisquoi lies in the  implemenng the Québec‐Vermont agreement on heartland of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail, and Phosphorus reducon in the Missisquoi Bay Walter Opuszynski feels it creates a unique connecon  implemenng the MOU between Vermont, New of people and land including a significant internaonal York, and Québec concerning the cleanup of Lake connecon to Canada. Champlain.

The NFCT has stewardship and work trips along the For more detailed informaon on Canada’s trail. NFCT’s business partners in Canada working for commitment to water quality and scenic/recreaonal scenic and recreaonal resource protecon include: protecons, please see the exisng protecons secon Camping Carrefour des Campeurs, Canoe & Co., and in the Suitability Chapter (Chapter 4). Vert le Mont. The NFCT organizaon has five designated access According to Vermont Department of Environmental areas along this reach of the river, as well as a number Conservaon (DEC) staff, the localies in Canada have of campsites and informaonal kiosks. American strong regulaons on riverine and lakeshore buffer Rivers, a naonal organizaon dedicated to protecng acvies. Much enforcement comes down to the local rivers and streams, recently partnered with the level but some of the zoning regulaons are set at the Naonal Park Service to create River Stories, a regional level. For example, there is a requirement collecon of informaon and photographs highlighng that all municipalies have a five meter buffer water trails around the naon. According to their requirement around Lake Memphremagog, which is website, River Stories highlight ten U.S. rivers, part of the Northern Forest Canoe Trail. The local including the Missisquoi secon of the NFCT, in the municipalies can then make this requirement more U.S. which “offer outstanding recreaonal stringent by increasing the buffer to ten meters or opportunies.” Keith Sampietro, a local business more. owner of Montgomery Adventures, has worked with the Northern Forest Explorers Youth Program for The Lake Champlain Basin Program’s plan, youth to get them paddling on the upper Missisquoi. Opportunies for Acon, discusses Québec's Business such as Keith Sampietro’s are great examples commitments to the Missisquoi watershed, as does of how healthy rivers, such as the Missisquoi and Québec’s Missisquoi Bay Inter‐Agency Advisory Trout, afford opportunies for rural economic Commiee’s Acon Plan (2010‐2016). The Missisquoi development. NFCT was recently named "2011 Best Bay Inter‐Agency Advisory Commiee is made up of Canoe Trail" by Outside Magazine, and is clearly one of

Page 30

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

the Outstanding Remarkable Recreaonal and Scenic The geology of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Values along the upper Missisquoi River. is especially unique on the Orleans side of the proposed designaon. Margorie Gale, Geologist with Established Trail Systems in the Study Area the Vermont Geological Survey describes this geology  Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail (a mul‐use trail as follows. The outcrops at Tillotson Peak and constructed along the Missisquoi River): a river‐ Tillotson Camp in Lowell, VT are metamorphosed related trail that owes its locaon to the gentle mafic volcanic rocks and schist metamorphosed mafic gradient created by the floodplain of the volcanic rocks (blueschists). Blueschist and eclogite Missisquoi River and where users may appreciate (very high pressure metamorphic rocks) are exposed in the aesthecs of the Missisquoi River valley metamorphic belts throughout the world (China,  Northern Forest Canoe Trail (paddling along the California, Australia, Canada/Yukon…); however, they Missisquoi River and other rivers): five are not generally preserved or exposed in the established access points, six campsites and two Appalachians which makes this geology in Orleans informaonal kiosks in the Study area County unique naonally and regionally. They are evidence that the rocks were subducted to a great Whitewater Paddling Opportunies depth and then quickly exhumed (brought back up). In  Missisquoi River – Troy to North Troy conjuncon with metamorphic age dates, this data  Trout River – upstream of VT Route 118 helped define the ming for subducon in the State of  West Hill Creek – from bridge near cemetery to VT Vermont. It was not that long ago that the theory of Route 118 plate tectonics became common in textbooks, so the  South Branch Trout River – from Hutchins Bridge discovery by Jo Laird of blueschist in Vermont was to Trout River really important for future explanaons of geologic  Jay Branch – from golf course at Jay Peak to history. According to Barry Doolan, Professor of Missisquoi River Geology at the University of Vermont, the blueschists  Black Falls Brook – last 2 miles into Montgomery found within the Study area, such as those found at in village to Fuller Bridge the Tillotson Peak area, are “unique geologically and  Wade Brook – near Wesield/Montgomery Line provide habitat for unique flora associated with this rock.” Several rare, threatened or endangered plant Natural Resource ORVs species exist in these areas thriving on the soils formed by the unique chemical composions of the Geology mafic and ultramafic rocks found along this thrust The State of Vermont has a diverse geological history fault. These rocks in the Tillotson Peak area, are which is represented in the varied landscape seen described in field guides, and “geologists from all over today. The land that now constutes Vermont has the world visit this site because it is so unique.” been at the edge of a connental plate throughout much of its history, which has subjected the area to The blueschist and eclogite at Tillotson Peak and the dynamic forces of colliding, pushing, thrusng, Tillotson Camp are part of a thrust fault slice which folding and wrinkling that happen through me at the includes serpennite. The ultramafic serpennite rock edge of a great land mass. Much of Vermont was also may be found near the Tillotson outcrops, roughly ½ historically underwater resulng in bedrock that mile from the Camp or Peak. Along the river mostly originated as sea sediments. Many hill farms serpennite is found in Lowell, Wesield and Troy. and small homesteads existed in the region, and the The blueschist in Vermont only occurs in the Tillotsen geology directly impacted their success by giving rise area, whereas serpennite/ultramafic rock occurs to the topography, soils and waterways of their sporadically within a belt or zone on the east flanks of farmsteads. the Green Mountains throughout the State. According to VanDiver’s Roadside Geology of VT and NH, the

Page 31

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

es. municipali

area

Study

the

within

ORVs

Resource

Natural

map

A Figure 10. Figure 10.

Page 32

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

Serpenne Outcrops along the Missisquoi River in because there one may see the many folds and Lowell, Troy and Wesield represent a high deformies in the rocks. The Burgess Branch Fault is concentraon of these rocks in Vermont. These visible through the topography of the area, and has outcroppings are part of one of the largest ultramafic been studied by geologists at the Vermont Geologic serpenne zones in the country. These serpenne Survey and the University of Vermont. Big Falls is rocks are ed to the Missisquoi drainage basin, and unique at the naonal and regional level as it is the the bedrock origin and rock types affect the path and largest undammed falls in Vermont that has been movement of the Missisquoi River. Serpenne made into a State Park/Natural Area. Below the falls is outcrops appear in at least 10 locaons along the a gorge over 200 feet long with 60‐foot high walls. Study corridor, and are associated with species of rare Jerry Jenkins describes Big Falls in his report for the ferns. Serpenne outcrops are areas where State, The Waterfalls, Cascades and Gorges of serpenne bedrock is exposed. This ultramafic rock is Vermont: “The Site is about one‐half mile long. Above unique because it is found more commonly deep in the falls are rapids, braiding channels, low cliffs ten to the Earth’s mantle. Serpenne rocks are chemically 35 feet high, and many small islands. Immediately disnct from other Vermont rocks; they are deficient before the falls is a large pool about 100 feet wide. in calcium, and rich in magnesium, iron, nickel and The falls themselves (actually steep cascades) consist chromium which are oen toxic to certain plant of three channels and drop about 25 feet. The middle species. Occurrences of these outcroppings are channel is beauful and spectacular and very noisy. tracked as rare occurrences by the Vermont Natural Below the falls there is a gorge about 75 yards long Heritage Informaon Project and are classified as S1 with walls about 60 feet high. The east walls are and G2, which means they are “very rare” and “rare” vercal, the west walls sloping. At the boom of the on State and global levels, respecvely. The rarity of gorge there is deeper water which makes good these types of rock aracts geologists from all over the swimming, and several sandy beaches.” The gorge world to this secon of Vermont. According to also contains a number of rare vascular plants. Sorenson and Thompson’s book Wetland, Woodland, Dorothy Allard , Virtual Herbarium Coordinator for Wildland, plant communies on these rare ledges and UVM’s Pringle Herbarium, led a 2005 inventory of outcrops are also specialized, and low in diversity due bryophytes at Big Falls State Park and states that it to the challenges of living on this rock type. This is the was an “interesng place from a bryological only habitat in which several rare plant species can live standpoint.” Both S2 and S1 species of bryophytes in the state. “The Green Mountain maidenhair fern were found during this inventory. The site was ranked (Adiantum viridimontanum; S2, VT Threatened) grows as “high importance” in the Waterfall Study due to its only on serpenne soils, and its overall distribuon is heavy recreaonal use, significant botanical character limited to northern Vermont and southern Quebec.” and its disncon of being the largest natural waterfall Serpenne maidenhair fern (Adiantum aleucum; S1), in the State. It has also been noted as a ‘significant Large‐leaved sandwort (Arenaria macrophylla; S2), feature’ of the Missisquoi basin in previous versions of and Marcescent sandwort (Arenaria marcescens) are the Agency of Natural Resources’ Watershed addional rare and uncommon plants which are Management (Basin) Plan. Waterfalls, Cascades and characterisc of serpenne outcrops. Gorges of Vermont states that with the “…alteraon and destrucon of waterfalls and gorges…combined Waterfalls, Cascades and Gorges with the number of people who use and appreciate The geology in Franklin and Orleans Counes also the ones that remain, seems to us to argue for the contributes to numerous unique waterfalls, cascades defense of every important site we have le.” and gorges along the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. The most well‐known of these is Big Falls on the Other important waterfalls, cascades and gorges along Missisquoi River in Troy, VT. Big Falls is a good the Missisquoi include:

example of the geologic history of the Study area  Baker’s Falls (Pierce Mill, Troy) – Missisquoi

Page 33

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

es. municipali

area

Study

the

within

quality

water

highest

the

ng demonstra

map

A Figure 11. Figure 11.

Page 34

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

River: Cascades below an old dam, the first 1991 swimming hole survey. cascade is approximately 25 feet high, followed by  Three Holes Area, Trout River, Montgomery: This two ten‐foot cascades. Declared to be a series of kele holes along the Trout River in significant site in the Missisquoi Basin Watershed Montgomery is a popular swimming area voted by Plan and described in The Waterfalls, Cascades Yankee magazine as the Best Swimming Hole in and Gorges of Vermont. New England in their May/June 2010 Issue. There  Troy Gorges – Missisquoi River: A series of four is more informaon about this privately owned bedrock gorges located about a mile downstream swimming hole in the Scenic/Recreaonal ORVs of the River Road Bridge in Troy. Deep pools secon. separate the gorges which range in length from about 400’ to 1,500’ along this 1‐mile segment of Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) Species and the upper Missisquoi River. This reach also Communies contains the foundaon ruins of an old iron According to the Vermont Wildlife Diversity Program smelter. (formerly the Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage  Jay Branch Gorge (Four Corners Swimming Hole) Program) there are many rare species of aquac – Jay Branch, Missisquoi River Tributary: Listed insects, amphibians, reples, plants and natural by newenglandwaterfalls.com as a premier communies associated with the upper Missisquoi and swimming hole in Vermont, this hole has beauful Trout Rivers. These rare, threatened and endangered waterfalls cut into the bedrock (Oauquechee species and communies are given global and state Formaon of black phyllite or schist with quartz). rankings. For example, a RTE listed as G2 means that This swimming area is a series of drops on the Jay they are considered imperiled with very few Branch called "Four Corners." They are a beauful populaons (oen 20 or fewer) in existence globally. set of swimming holes just downhill of the juncon State ranks are assigned similarly, with those with a of Route 105, Route 101 and the Veilleux Road. State ranks S3 or lower considered RTEs. These ranks There are large potholes present, and it even used are based on a species’ vulnerability to exrpaon to be a desnaon for gold panning. Please see (ceasing to exist in VT) or exncon (ceasing to exist the potholes in the scenic and recreaonal ORV on Earth). S3 ranking means species are vulnerable to chapter of the Management Plan for more exrpaon, oen due to declines to 80 or fewer informaon. occurrences in the State due to habitat restricons or other reasons for decline. S2 ranking means species  Tillotson Mills, Lockwood Brook, Missisquoi River are imperiled and at high risk for exrpaon, oen Tributary, Lowell: This small woodland cascade is due to declines to 20 or fewer occurrences in the State below a historic mill, and described in the due to habitat restricons or other reasons for decline. Waterfalls, Cascades and Gorges of Vermont. This S1 ranking means species are crically imperiled and site is a waterfall and swimming hole, and also at very high risk for exrpaon from the State, oen noted as a ‘significant feature’ of the Missisquoi due to declines to 5 or fewer occurrences in the State basin in previous versions of the Agency of Natural due to habitat restricons or steep declines in Resources’ Watershed Management Plan (Basin 6 numbers. ‐ Missisquoi River Watershed Water Quality and Aquac Habitat Assessment Report). One such rare natural community, the Serpenne  Twin Falls, East Branch of the Missisquoi River, Outcrops, was discussed in the geology secon above. Lowell: These falls are located in Lowell Village on The serpenne outcrop natural community is listed as the East Branch. Cascading falls are made by a G2, meaning that serpenne outcrops are considered large waterfall split in two by a bedrock outcrop. imperiled with very few populaons (oen 20 or There is a deep pool below the falls which is good fewer) in existence globally. Another such community for swimming. This place was described in the is the Riverside Outcrop (S3), an upland shore natural

Page 35

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

community found along streams and rivers where near forested streams and rivers, but also near slower there is exposed bedrock. Common near waterfalls, moving lakes or bays, where it hunts for other cascades and gorges, this community is found along dragonflies which it catches on the wing. The zebra large rivers in the State like the Missisquoi. Wetland, clubtail dragonfly (Stylurus scudderi) is named for the Woodland, Wildland lists the red‐spoed ground swelled, club‐like end to its abdomen and the beetle as a rare insect that may be found within this alternang black and yellow (or pale green) stripes natural community. Some species of plants such as along its body. This rare dragonfly lives in clear, clean, wild chives, shining ladies‐tresses and several species forested streams and small rivers including trout of bryophytes (group of non‐vascular plants which streams. You may see the males patrolling over the includes mosses, hornworts and liverworts) live in and river guarding foraging and breeding territory. on these harsh, riverside outcrops. Silver Maple‐ Ostrich Fern Riverine Floodplain Forest (S3) is The following are RTE reples and amphibians dominated by silver maple and ostrich ferns which are dependent on the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers and able to survive in the typical, annual flooding. Many their surrounding wetlands. Mink frogs (S3) are green migratory birds are known to use this riparian habitat ‐faced frogs that, according to Jim Andrews, along with oer, mink, muskrat, beaver, and several Coordinator of the Vermont Reple and Amphibian amphibian species. Troy Colony of Great Laurels is Atlas, are reported to smell like garlic or onion. They listed by the Vermont Rivers Study as a “relic colony of prefer shallow bays and inlets and outlets of rivers, laurel shrubs” in its list of natural areas that are lakes and ponds. Conservaon of undeveloped bays “recognized as excellent examples of Vermont’s and marshlands, and educaon and monitoring of natural heritage.” The Great Laurel is a State roads along waterways for mortality during summer Threatened plant (Rhododendron maximum; S2). The breeding season would help protect this vulnerable Audubon Society Field Guide to the Northeast amphibian species. Wood turtles (S3, VT Species of provides the following descripon: “The great laurel is Special Concern) have red/orange flesh, black heads, a large and spectacular rhododendron usually found and layered scutes (shell scales) which can look like only in warmer climates than that of northern the rings in a tree. Their plastron, the boom of their Vermont near the Canadian border. It is believed that shell, is yellow with black markings. Wood turtle this species was more common in northern Vermont habitat includes streams where they overwinter, and about 6,000 years ago, when the region possessed a nearby uplands and fields where they feed. They need somewhat warmer climate. This period of me is connecvity between their streams and neighboring known as the climac opmum…. This relic colony of woodlands. Protecng these habitats along with great laurels is one of only two that are found in eliminang their collecon as pets and reducing road northern New England.” This colony of laurels was mortality will help protect this species. Four‐toed listed in the Vermont Rivers Study. Salamander (S2, VT Species of Special Concern) – This salamander is small, and approximately the size and Several species of rare dragonflies and damselflies are color of the common red‐backed salamander oen found in the Study area, and are directly linked to the found in woodlands. This salamander is quality of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers and their disnguishable by its creamy, almost opal, stomach surrounding wetlands. Their ranks are listed in the which also has a smaering of black spots. They also table below. According to Vermont Natural Heritage only have four toes on their back feet whereas most Data, there are 19 species of dragonflies and salamanders have five hind toes. Preserving their damselflies in Franklin and Orleans Counes which are preferred habitat of vernal pool edges and small, ranked as S3 or lower (vulnerable to exrpaon to wooded swamps, such as red maple swamps will help crically imperiled). The dragonhunter dragonfly protect this high priority species of concern in the (Hagenius brevistylus) is the only species in this genus state. The Vermont State Natural Heritage in North America. This amazing aerialist typically lives Informaon Project has mapped 64 disnct vernal

Page 36

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

Table 1. Study area records for rare Dragonﬂies & Damselﬂies (Odonata) from the VT Natural Heritage Program.

Common Name Genus species SR GR Franklin Orleans

Spotted Spreadwing Lestes congener S3 G5 Yes Yes

Elegant Spreadwing Lestes inaequalis S3 G5 Yes

Vesper Bluet Enallagma vesperum S3 G5 Yes Yes

Black‐tipped Darner Aeshna tuberculifera S2 G4 Yes Yes

Harlequin Darner Gomphaeschna furcillata S2 G5 Yes

Lilypad Clubtail Arigomphus furcifer S2 G5 Yes

Black‐shouldered Spinyleg Dromogomphus spinosus S3 G5 Yes Yes

Beaverpond Clubtail Gomphus borealis S2 G4 Yes Yes

Dragonhunter Hagenius brevistylus S3 G5 Yes

Southern Pygmy Clubtail Lanthus vernalis S2 G4 Yes

Maine Snaketail Ophiogomphus mainensis S2 G4 Yes

Eastern Least Clubtail Stylogomphus albistylus S3 G5 Yes Yes

Zebra Clubtail Stylurus scudderi S2 G4 Yes Yes

Arrow Clubtail Stylurus spiniceps S2 G5 Yes

Williamson's Emerald Somatochlora williamsoni S3 G5 Yes

Calico Pennant Celithemis elisa S3 G5 Yes

Belted Whiteface Leucorrhinia proxima S3 G5 Yes Yes

Twelve‐spotted Skimmer Libellula pulchella S3 G5 Yes Yes Band‐winged Meadow‐ hawk Sympetrum semicinctum S3 G5 Yes Yes

Table 2: Important Sites of High Water Quality Supporng ORVs

Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment Rankings Excellent:

 Missisquoi River (Richford)

Excellent – Very Good:  Missisquoi River (Enosburgh)

Very Good:  Missisquoi River (Richford)

High Quality Aquatic Insect Community/”High Quality

 Missisquoi River (Richford)

Fish Community Assessment Rankings Excellent:

 Trout River (Berkshire) Page 37

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

pools in the Study area watershed, see the Vermont species has seen decline in numbers in recent years Vernal Pool Mapping Project, with two very close to due to impacts by stocked trout species which are the Missisquoi: 1) an old oxbow in Berkshire, and 2) competors for food and habitat, along with habitat another in Richford. Vernal pools, oen forested, alteraons. These fish are coldwater species, and swamp natural communies present throughout the require temperatures typically below 65‐72oF. With Study area, are seasonally temporary wetlands loss of riparian trees, and increased runoff to streams important to biological diversity, forest funcon and water temperatures are oen above levels which watershed processes. These pools are formed from stress this species somemes leading to relocaon or spring rains and snow meltwater in small woodland mortality. The Wild and Scenic Study Commiee depressions. Because these vernal pools are promotes water quality iniaves that protect these ephemeral (temporary) they are not able to maintain important aquac species, and recognizes the need to populaons of fish species. This makes them maintain high water quality in the region. The important as breeding areas for amphibians, especially tributaries of the Missisquoi including the Trout River, those sensive to predaon by fish such as wood include headwater streams and river secons of high frogs, and to the biological diversity and watershed quality waters. Please see Figure 11 for a map of funcons of an area. Many species of aquac insects, streams within the Study area with high water quality. salamanders, frogs and turtles depend on vernal pools as crical habitat. Fairy shrimp are small crustaceans Sites where the Vermont Agency of Natural which only live in vernal pools. Vernal pools are Resources’ (ANR) Watershed Management Division considered uncommon in the State and naonally, and has determined aquac communies are significant ecological areas protected under (macroinvertebrates and/or fish) to be “Very Good” or Vermont’s wetland laws. Under Vermont’s Wetland “Excellent” are also idenfied as supporng the Rules, vernal pools are considered significant wetlands Missisquoi and Trout ORVs. The occurrences of under wildlife habitat, Secon 5.4. Typically communies of this quality are indicave of the best considered Class II wetlands, they are required to have water quality and outstanding aquac habitats in the a 50 foot buffer though many may be beer protected state of Vermont. Addionally, ANR biologists have with a larger one. further classified a subset of river and stream reaches as “High Quality Biota,” indicang that these habitats Water quality is parcularly important to the rare fish support naturally funconing, exceponally healthy species found in the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. biological communies. These High Quality Biota sites Fantail Darter (S3) is described by the book, Fishes of are idenfied as supporng the Natural Resource and Vermont, as living in shallow areas of streams and other ORVs as well. rivers where they hunt for aquac macroinvertebrates between rocks. This fish species is at the northeastern Overall, the combinaon of important geology; edge of its distribuon, and is only found in Vermont waterfalls, cascades and gorges; and rare, threatened in the Missisquoi River and some of its tributaries. The and endangered species and natural communies Brassy Minnow (S1, VT Species of Special Concern) is make up the Natural Resource ORVs which are rare on the “extreme eastern edge of its distribuon,” and important at both the naonal and regional scale. being found in few areas in Vermont including two Missisquoi River tributaries. This minnow Historic and Cultural ORVs predominately eats algae, making it one of two true herbivore fish species in the State. For this reason, Archeological Sites they prefer waterway reaches with muddy substrate Lowell, Wesield, Troy, North Troy, Richford, rich in organic maer. The Brook trout, though not Enosburgh, and Enosburg Falls have known rare, threatened or endangered in the State, are the archeological sites documented in the Vermont only char species nave to Vermont. This salmonid Division of Historical Preservaon archives or have

Page 38

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

es. municipali

area

Study

the

within

ORVs

Cultural

and

Historic

map

A Figure 12. Figure 12.

Page 39

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

known archeological sensivity. All municipalies in transport forest products. The waterways created a the Study area along the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers separate challenge for overland travel; a growing likely have archeological sites which are economy and an abundance of rivers and streams in undocumented. Of the documented sites, Nave the area created the need for many bridges. The American Site, VT‐FR‐162 is in Enosburg Falls. There is bridges were built with roofs to shield them from the evidence here of a large camp or village based on the elements – rain, ice, and lots of snow. Twelve covered low density of prehistoric arfacts (early to middle bridges were built in the Town of Montgomery alone, Woodland Period) over a large area. Chert and quartz all by the same builders – the Jewe brothers. These flakes, fire‐cracked rock, charcoal, and hearth features bridges are so important that Montgomery’s 2010 were found. According to the Division of Historic Town Plan stated a vision for the future of Preservaon VT‐FR‐162 “is important in that it is at Montgomery was to “maintain and preserve present the largest known site on the Missisquoi Montgomery’s six covered bridges, for they represent [River] above Enosburg Falls. It is probably a our community’s history and an appreciaon of Woodland Period camp/village site which was not Vermont’s cultural heritage.” By 1940, there were 13 intensely used. This suggests it could be…a sensive covered bridges in Montgomery. The president of the temporal marker if dated…” This selement was on Montgomery Historical Society, Sco Perry, states that the banks of the Missisquoi River, and likely owed its these bridges were oen built to provide access to locaon to the falls in present‐day Enosburg Falls. The more trees for harvest. Six of these covered bridges selement was river dependent with the changing are sll in use today and one (Hectorville Bridge, from riverine environment a probable explanaon for the Gibou Road) is currently in off‐site storage awaing temporal use of the camp/village. Users of the site repair. These are ORVs of naonal and regional surely took advantage of the broad floodplain and significance as they represent the most covered easy canoe routes available at that site. Addionally, bridges within one town in the country. The six combined, Nave American Sites VT‐FR‐331– VT‐FR‐ Montgomery bridges, as well as the one in Enosburgh 333 are one of the few known archeological sites on and another in Troy, are popular desnaons for the upper Missisquoi River. Arfacts at this site are few, and likely indicate a small, short‐term hunng camp. Arfacts are likely from Paleoindians (9000‐ 7000 B.C.E.) or middle Woodland peoples (1‐1000). This site is currently protected by the 100’ Vermont wetland buffer, and may be eligible for inclusion on the Naonal Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In phase two assessment, protecon from river erosion by geotexle fiber was recommended along with seeking inclusion on the NRHP. Because of their importance in understanding the Nave American culture of the area, and their uniqueness in the State on the upper Missisquoi River, these archeological Figure 13. Comstock Bridge, Montgomery, VT. Photo by sites are considered Historic and Cultural ORVs. Ken Secor

Bridges with Historic and Cultural Signiﬁcance sightseers and bring many tourists to the area. The Covered bridges are a sought‐aer recreaonal Hopkins and West Hill Brook covered bridges and aracon for people interested in cultural heritage swimming holes are important recreaonal and scenic beauty. Early selers in the Study area desnaons for trout anglers and swimmers. The were fortunate to have ample forest and farm land, as Hopkins Bridge, Hopkins Bridge Rd., Enosburgh (also a well as plenful running water, to power mills and Jewe brothers’ bridge added to the NRHP 1974), is

Page 40

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

near the Enosburgh/Montgomery town line. Bridges, Missisquoi River According to Sco Perry from the Montgomery  River Road Covered Bridge (Upper Bridge), River Historical Society the fact that it was also built by Rd., Troy was added to the NRHP 1974. Montgomery’s Jewe brothers and its closer proximity  Town Highway Bridge #12 (Boston Post Road, to downtown Montgomery Village than Enosburgh Enosburgh, VT) is an iron bridge over the oen lead them to “claim” it for Montgomery. These Missisquoi River that was added in 2007 to the bridges add to the unique local character and quaint Naonal Register of Historic Places. New England Charm of the Study towns. All of these  Missisquoi River Bridge at the Canada/VT border covered bridges were listed on the Naonal Register of crossing on Route 105 between Richford, Vermont Historic Places between November 1974 and and Abercorn, Quebec is on the Naonal Register December 1974. As such, these bridges are of Historic Places. It was the first of ten truss recognized as significant at the community, state, and bridges spanning the Missisquoi River. naonal level. The border crossing bridge on Route 105 is owned Covered Bridges, Trout River jointly by the U.S. and Canada. The communies have  Comstock Bridge, Comstock Bridge Rd., cooperated across the internaonal boundary to Montgomery maintain the bridge. In fact, VTrans has a project  Fuller Bridge, Fuller Bridge Rd., Montgomery under development with Canada to rehabilitate the  Hectorville Bridge, Gibou Rd., Montgomery old steel truss. They are hoping to begin construcon (currently in off‐site storage awaing repair) in calendar year 2016.  Hopkins Bridge, Hopkins Bridge Rd., Enosburgh (near border with Montgomery) VTrans and Regional Planning staff indicate that the  Hutchins Bridge, Hutchins Bridge Rd., Montgomery covered bridges are municipally owned and (Crosses the South Branch of the Trout River, a maintained. Funding for maintenance or tributary)  Longley Bridge, Longely Bridge Rd., Montgomery (has been closed temporarily and is bypassed by an addional steel bridge that also crosses the Trout River)  West Hill (Creamery) Bridge, Creamery Bridge Rd., Montgomery (crosses West Hill Brook, a Trout River tributary) Figure 14. Study Commiee members idenfying ORVs at a monthly meeng. Photo by Shana Stewart Deeds

Page 41

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

Figure 15. Graphic by the Montgomery Historical Society of the seven Jewe brothers’ covered bridges in Montgomery.

rehabilitaon needs tradionally comes from local, Naonal Historic Covered Bridge Preservaon state and somemes federal transportaon programs. Program. Though the Naonal Historic Covered Bridge If damage is related to a presidenally declared Preservaon Program was not funded in the last disaster, the town owning the public infrastructure federal transportaon bill, Vermont did receive may apply for help from the Federal Emergency $850,000 for the Longley Bridge rehabilitaon in the Management Agency’s (FEMA) Public Assistance previous cycle. Program. In addion to local maintenance budgets, many (if not all) of the bridges have received some Classiﬁcaon state and federal funding for repairs or rehabilitaon. Potenal funding sources can include: VTrans Based on applicable criteria, the Naonal Park Service Structures Grant, Town Highway Bridge Program, (NPS) has assigned a preliminary classiﬁcaon of Transportaon Alternaves Program (formerly recreaonal to the segments of the upper Missisquoi Transportaon Enhancement Program) and the and Trout Rivers that are eligible for designaon. The

Page 42

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

NPS and Study Commiee, though recognizing that some smaller reaches with possible scenic classificaon exist, concluded that the overall classificaon that best fits Segments 1, 2 and 3 is recreaonal. Should further acon to designate tributaries (Segment 4) take place, an evaluaon of the classificaon of these segments would occur at that me.

Figure 16. Students idenfying macroinvertebrates during a Bugworks workshop cosponsored with the Study Commiee by the Missisquoi River Basin Associaon. Photo by Shana Stewart Deeds

Figure 17. Spoed salamander and wood frog eggs in a vernal pool (le). Adult wood frog (right). Photos by Shana Stewart Deeds.

Page 43

Chapter 3. Eligibility and Classification

The free‐flowing segments of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are found eligible for designaon based on the presence of mulple Outstandingly Remarkable Values. These segments meet the classificaon definion of a recreaonal river area due to the level of human access and alteraon.

Figure 18. Cyclists enjoying the Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail. Photo by David Juaire.

Addional Resources

Determining Acceptable Minimal Stream Flows: www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_ﬂowprocedure.pdf Missisquoi Bay Watershed Planning in the VT Watershed Management Division: www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/planning/htm/pl_missisquoi.htm User’s Guide to Dam Removal in VT: www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/drw_usersguide.pdf

Page 44

Chapter 4. Suitability

This Chapter presents the Study ﬁndings related to Secon 4(a) of the Wild

and Scenic Act “...on the suitability or non‐suitability for addion to the Photo by Maddie McGarvey naonal wild and scenic rivers system.” The suitability of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers for designaon is directly related to the exisng and future management of the rivers. Suitability Criteria 1) Should the river’s free‐ﬂowing character, water quality, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values In 1995, members of the Bureau of Land (ORVs) be protected, or are one or more other Management, Naonal Park Service, U.S. Fish and uses [e.g., issuance of a hydro license] Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service established important enough to warrant doing otherwise? an interagency council to address administraon of 2) Will the river’s free‐ﬂowing character, water Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Interagency quality, and ORVs be protected through Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinang Council designaon? Is designaon the best method developed criteria for suitability of rivers for protecng the river corridor? considered for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic 3) Is there a demonstrated commitment to Rivers system. These criteria are similar to, but protect the river by any nonfederal enes disnct from the eligibility requirements for that may be parally responsible for inclusion in the Naonal WSR System. The implemenng protecve management?

following quesons are asked to ascertain whether In answering these quesons, the beneﬁts and any river is suitable for designaon. impacts of Wild and Scenic Rivers designaon may

Page 45

Chapter 4. Suitability

be evaluated and alternave protecon methods considered.

Addionally, the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers predominantly ﬂow through private lands and best ﬁt within the Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers model. The Naonal Park Service created addional quesons to ascertain the suitability of these Partnership Rivers.

1) Are exisng protecon measures adequate to conserve the river’s outstanding resources without the need for federal land acquision or federal land management? 2) Is there an exisng or proposed management framework that will bring the key river interests together to work toward the ongoing protecon of the river? 3) What local support exists for river protecon and naonal designaon? 4) What would the eﬀects of designaon be on the land use, water base, and resources associated Figure 19. Study Commiee members learning about river with the river, the neighboring communies, etc.? dynamics through the use of a ﬂume courtesy of Staci Pomeroy of the VT Agency of Natural Resources. Photo by Exisng Protecons Shana Stewart Deeds.

Protecons for free‐flowing character, water quality watershed associaons, conservaon commissions, and each of the idenfied ORVs were assessed by the land trusts, and other non‐governmental supporng NPS in conjuncon with the Study Commiee and the organizaons that have strong interests in protecng complete findings are available in the Management the outstanding resources idenfied by the local Plan and its Appendices. The Protecons Appendices community during the Study process. There is also available on the Study Commiee’s website strong local and regional cizen recognion, evident in (www.vtwsr.org) specifically list the protecons town and regional plans, of the importance of these provided through federal, regional, state, and local rivers and the resources they support. The mechanisms that already protect the ORVs. Management Plan demonstrates that these exisng protecons, along with implementaon of the These protecons include strong local, state, and recommendaons in the Management Plan, meet the federal programs, statutes, regulaons and ordinances suitability criteria for the segments that are that directly protect the watercourses and adjacent recommended for Wild and Scenic Rivers designaon. lands. Federal legislaon such as the Clean Water Act, and Federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Municipalies in the Study area demonstrate their Engineers are to provide substanal protecon for support for Wild and Scenic Rivers in various ways water quality. The free‐flowing condion of the upper including: regulaons at mes above and beyond Missisquoi and Trout Rivers is protected through the State regulaons and requirements, support for Vermont Agency of Natural Resources’ stringent projects in the watershed that demonstrate best review and perming for projects which propose agricultural pracces, zoning regulaons that mirror liming the free‐flowing nature of Vermont’s WSR values, and contribuons to local organizaons, waterways. In addion, there are established local such as the Missisquoi River Basin Associaon, that

Page 46

Chapter 4. Suitability

work for healthy rivers. By far the most significant unusual or important plant and animal qualies of issue related to riverfront and river‐corridor lands has scienfic, ecological, or educaonal interest make been agricultural preservaon and promoon of lands in this district unsuitable for intensive agricultural BMPs to protect water quality. This is not development because of their local, statewide, surprising given that agriculture dominates river‐ naonal and global significance. Included are steep corridor lands, and is recognized at the state and local slopes, rare and endangered species, waterways… and level as a crical economic and cultural quality of life significant wildlife habitat. Designaon of this district issue. At the same me, development pressure has is intended to protect … scenic and natural resource been generally low (See Table 3 below). Table 5 on values.” page 54 and accompanying narrave descripon of agriculture‐related programs demonstrate the degree Addionally, the Management Plan development and to which this issue has dominated the river‐related local endorsement process demonstrated that all of management agenda. the communies are interested in and supporve of developing such approaches, and acng proacvely in It is important to note, however, that several relaon to the river and its protecon, as appropriate. communies have begun to recognize the need and In many instances, though, the focus will appropriately benefit of more diverse and sophiscated local remain on agricultural issues, as they dominate the approaches such as Enosburgh’s buffer requirement, river landscape and areas not suitable for agriculture Enosburg Falls’ setbacks and zoning districts, or are oen remote, bordered by steep terrain, and Berkshire and Enosburg Falls’ employment of general viewed as not threatened. stormwater management standards. Enosburgh has a Natural Resources Overlay District (§570 of Zoning A major factor in the evoluon of local and state river Bylaws), which includes “significant geologic features, management focus is the recently passed Act 110 (2012), which, for the first me, has provided State Table 3. Census data for Franklin and Orleans County Study area municipalies.

Franklin County NRPC Census Info 1790‐2000 Population change from: YEAR 1790 1900 1950 1990 2000 1990‐2000 1950‐2000 Berkshire 0 1,326 1,063 1,190 1,388 ~+16% ~+30% Enosburgh 0 2,054 2,101 2,535 2,788 ~+10% ~+32% Enosburg Falls 0 1,289 1,350 1,473 ~+9% ~+14% Montgomery 0 1,876 1,091 823 992 ~+20% ~‐9% Richford 0 2,421 2,643 2,178 2,321 ~+6% ~‐12%

Orleans County NVDA Population change from: 2010 Census Info 2000 2010 2000‐2010 Jay 426 521 ~+22%

Lowell 738 879 ~+19%

North Troy 593 620 ~+4%

Troy 1,564 1,662 ~+6% Westield 503 536 ~+6%

Page 47

Chapter 4. Suitability

level enabling legislaon that encourages local high nutrient condions in the waterways. An communies to adopt river corridor zoning strategies, objecve of this plan is to enforce and comply with including vegetave buffer requirements. This Act, in Canada’s Agricultural Operaons Regulaon (REA) in combinaon with the recent State adopon of the North Missisquoi River Basin. Acons taken by the scienfic, geomorphic approaches to river Ministère du Développement durable, de management, and local community support of the l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP) and Direcon Wild and Scenic River designaon and associated régionale du Centre de contrôle environnemental de Management Plan form a very solid basis and l’Estrie et de la Montérégie (CCEQ) include the foundaon from which local approaches may evolve in maintenance and inspecon of all farms in the Lake coming years. The Trout River Project highlighted on Champlain Basin and ensure compliance to regulaon. page 24 is another example of a science‐based project Over 800 farms have been visited since 2003. Not only that reflects the forward thinking of the State and do these Canadian federal regulaons protect the local municipalies with respect to river management. scenic and recreaonal resources of the Missisquoi Current regulaons in these municipalies reflect River, they also protect the water quality. More exisng levels of land use. Should populaon density informaon on Canadian laws protecng water quality greatly increase, strengthened land use regulaons may be found in the Water Quality resource may be necessary. Support from the Northwest protecons to follow. Regional Planning Commission and Northeastern Vermont Development Associaon ensure mindful State planning in the region that stays ahead of demands on lands in the watershed. As the State of Vermont acknowledges the importance of recreaon to its cizens, legislaon has been passed In total, the current combinaon of local, state, and that encourages town, planning commissions and federal regulaons, protected lands, and physical State agencies to engage in planning processes to constraints to development provide a protecon maintain and enhance recreaon opportunies in the scheme for the Wild and Scenic River Values that is State. Vermont’s Land Use Planning Law, Title 24, adequate and makes federal ownership, Chapter 117 of the Vermont Statutes, states that condemnaon and management of lands unnecessary “Growth should not significantly diminish the value for the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. In support and availability of outdoor recreaonal acvies”, and of this conclusion, important local, state, and federal “Public access to noncommercial outdoor recreaonal protecons were idenfied. Highlights for each Wild opportunies, such as lakes and hiking trails, should be and Scenic River value category are as follows. idenfied, provided, and protected wherever appropriate” (24 V.S.A. § 4302). Scenic and Recreaonal Protecons Act 250 is Vermont’s development control law. The Federal (Canada) law provides a public, quasi‐judicial process for reviewing and managing the environmental, social and The Missisquoi Bay Inter‐Agency Advisory Commiee’s fiscal consequences of major subdivisions and Missisquoi Bay Acon Plan 2010‐2016 is an important development in Vermont through the issuance of land document demonstrang Canada’s commitment to use permits. There are ten separate environmental phosphorus reducon in the Missisquoi watershed. criteria (with sub‐criteria) that may cause a This is parcularly important for Scenic and construcon project to require issuance of an Act 250 Recreaonal Resources in the Missisquoi River and permit, consequently making the project suscepble Lake Champlain due to the reducon in swimming and to both State and public review. The perming boang recreaon along with scenic character process includes review of land use permit associated with algal blooms that oen accompany applicaons for conformance with the Act’s ten

Page 48

Chapter 4. Suitability

environmental criteria, issuance of opinions Conservaon District was created to protect the scenic concerning the applicability of Act 250 to and natural resource values of secons of the Town developments and subdivisions of property, for forestry, wildlife habitat, wetlands, and outdoor monitoring for compliance with the Act and with land recreaon. The Forest/Conservaon District is use permit condions, and public educaon. Criterion reserved for land with limited suitability for 8 and 10 of Act 250 are of parcular note to the Wild community growth and development because of and Scenic Study towns and ORVs. remote locaon, extreme topography and/or shallow soils. Only limited low density development is A statewide comprehensive plan for outdoor encouraged in this district. recreaon is a requirement for receiving federal support from the Land and Water Conservaon Fund Troy and North Troy, Village of (LWCF). On a federal level, these State plans are The Town of Troy and the Village of North Troy have a knows as Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor combined Town Plan (adopted 3/20/08) and Zoning Recreaon Plan, or SCORP. In Vermont, the Plan is Bylaws. Recreaon is included in the central objecves called the Vermont Outdoor Recreaon Plan. Though of the Troy Town Plan. Specifically, it is indicated in non‐regulatory, the Vermont Outdoor Recreaon the Plan that the Town will promote outdoor Plan intends to provide the following resources to recreaonal opportunies and explore opportunies planning groups: to protect exisng natural and scenic areas. The  A vision, along with goals and acons, in support Missisquoi River and its floodways were idenfied by of outdoor recreaon endeavors throughout the local residents as an environmentally sensive area State in five‐year increments; that should be addressed in any development  Reference materials for towns, organizaons, and perming processes. An objecve in the Town Plan recreaonists to use when coordinang their regarding this and other environmentally sensive acvies with statewide priories, per areas states that these areas should not be requirements of some programs such as the fragmented, but rather maintained in a connuous LWCF; Vermont Trails and Greenways Plan; and corridor that “complement the local landscape… and Vermont Wetlands Conservaon Strategy. provide significant recreaonal opportunies.” The Town Plan also includes a number of specific goals for Local the conservaon of natural resources, many of which relate to the connuance of outdoor recreaon in the Richford Town. Among these goals is a statement regarding The Richford Town Plan (2007) includes a discussion planning for and protecng the quality of water about the Missisquoi River as an important resource resources. The Zoning Bylaws of Troy include a for recreaon in the Town. The Plan cites Missisquoi, provision in Secon 321, regarding Planned Unit Memorial and Davis Parks, which provide boat access Developments. This ordinance encourages “a more to the Missisquoi River, as vital resources to the Town. efficient use of land… to preserve open space, natural The Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail passes through the resources and recreaonal areas.” Town and is also an important recreaonal resource. Natural Resource Protecons Richford has two Zoning Districts that contain recreaonal purposes in their bylaws. The Recreaon/ Federal Conservaon District is to provide areas with 1973’s Federal Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93‐205) recreaonal opportunies and to protect protects endangered species of fish, wildlife and environmentally fragile areas in the village district. plants, and authorizes the federal government to Residenal development is prohibited within the maintain a list of those species which are endangered Recreaon/Conservaon District. The Forest/ or threatened. No one is permied to possess, sell or

Page 49

Chapter 4. Suitability

transport these listed species, and any person who thrush nesng sites (S2B, G4) and the Hazen’s Natural violates the law may face legal penales. Land and Area and State Park, which contains a boreal conservaon funds may be used to conserve these calcareous cliff natural community (S2), peregrine species. Secon 7 of the Endangered Species Act falcon nests (S3B, G4), and many rare plants. The requires the federal government not to jeopardize the Town of Wesield intends to use these locaons species, or modify their crical habitat. Recovery idenfied by the Vermont Wildlife Diversity Program plans must be in place for listed species, and these as “red flags” to indicate the need to involve State plans must be reviewed every two years. If a species is biologists if development is proposed within these delisted, it must be monitored for five years. sites. These areas will also help the Town to idenfy areas of significant local value for the Town, and State places to consider acquisions of conservaon easements, right‐of‐ways, or cooperave agreements Act 250 connues to play an important role in Natural with landowners to secure long‐term access. Resource ORV protecons. Criterion 8 of Act 250 is Wesield’s Zoning Bylaws (Secon 324.06) have likely the most rigorous protecon for geologic requirements that wireless telecommunicaon towers resources unless there are rare, threatened and greater than 20 feet high may not be placed in RTE endangered species present. species habitat.

The Vermont Wildlife Diversity Program, formerly the Water Quality Protecons Vermont Natural Heritage Program, is tasked with the protecon of rare species and natural communies Federal through Vermont’s Endangered Species Law. In some cases, rare species and communies are dependent The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) provides upon unique geological features (such as serpenne substanal protecon for the upper Missisquoi and outcrops), which, in turn, become protected by their Trout Rivers’ water quality by restricng all discharges associaon with the rare species or community. into the rivers. The CWA was created to restore and Species with a State status of Threatened or maintain the chemical, physical, and biological Endangered are protected by Vermont’s Endangered integrity of the naon’s surface water. It requires Species Law (10 V.S.A. Chapter 123). The law states states to adopt surface Water Quality Standards and that it is unlawful for anyone to “take, possess or an An‐degradaon Policy and establishes the transport wildlife or plants that are members of an Naonal Polluon Discharge Eliminaon System, endangered or threatened species” and allows the administered by the State of VT, which requires all Secretary of Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources enes to obtain a discharge permit from the (ANR) to adopt rules for the conservaon and appropriate authority. In addion, the Secon 404 protecon of listed species, which includes protecon Permit requires approval from the U.S. Army Corps of of their habitat (10 V.S.A. § 5403). Engineers for any project that would discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Local The Naonal Flood Insurance Act established the Wesield Naonal Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to protect Wesield’s Town Plan menons several natural areas against flood losses. States can require more stringent with rare species located in Town. In the Wesield measures. In addion, NFIP encourages communies Town Plan, the floodplain forest at the confluence of to engage in beer floodplain management and also the Missisquoi River and Mineral Spring is noted for allows municipalies to adopt more restricve having several rare plants. Addional RTE habitats in ordinances than the federal government. Town include Jay State Forest, which has Bicknell’s

Page 50

Chapter 4. Suitability

Addionally, the Naonal Environmental Policy Act biological resources with a view toward preserving, (NEPA) and the Rivers and Harbors Act provide some maintaining and recovering the use of water and protecon to rivers and streams. aquac biological resources. To do this, the Ministère must provide environmental discharge objecves The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides the strongest (EDOs) for sources of water polluon. These protecon available for the watercourses by standards provide a method for calculang protecng designated rivers from any federally environmental discharge objecves (EDOs; assisted or licensed water resource development presumably congruent to TMDLs in the U.S.). Many of project that would have a direct and adverse impact Canada’s water quality criteria originated from the on the river’s resources. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), the United States Environmental Protecon Canadian federal water quality policies are also strong. Agency (U.S. EPA) and the World Health Organizaon To provide lakeshores, riverbanks, lioral zones and (WHO) indicang criteria compable with United floodplains adequate protecon, Québec’s States’ standards. The quality criteria for protecng government adopted the Polique de protecon des recreaonal acvies are aimed primarily at rives, du lioral et des plaines inondables on prevenng health hazards due to primary or December 22, 1987. This protecon policy was secondary contact with water, while also covering the revised in 1991 and 1996 with the most recent update aesthec aspects of the resource. The aesthec in August 2012. This is a minimum protecon criterion is aimed at protecng riparian developments framework, but does not prevent governmental and such as parks, rest areas, vacaon spots and municipal authories from adopng more stringent campgrounds from negave visual effects. Criteria for protecon measures. This policy is meant to prevent recreaonal acvies have primarily been determined degradaon, preserve and maintain the quality and for microbiological parameters and those that could biodiversity of the environment, ensure safety, and alter the aesthec quality of water. Water whose protect plants and wildlife in the lakeshores, quality is inferior to that defined by the quality criteria riverbanks, lioral zones and floodplains of Canada. must not be degraded further, and every measure All structures, undertakings and works are in principle must be taken to improve its quality to at least the prohibited on lakeshores and riverbanks. Should they level of the quality criteria. All waters must be free of be proposed, all structures, undertakings and works substances or materials that derive from human that are liable to destroy or alter the vegetaon cover acvies and that, whether alone or in combinaon of a lakeshore or riverbank, expose the soil or affect with other factors, may cause; a color, smell, taste, the stability of the lakeshore or riverbank or encroach turbidity or any other condion to a degree that could on the lioral zone are subject to prior authorizaon. detract from the use of watercourses; materials in Such projects are not permied on lots located in a sufficient quanty to become unaesthec or high‐risk of erosion, and a buffer strip of a minimum of detrimental; excessive producon of rooted, aached 5 meters must be maintained (preferably in a natural or floang aquac plants, fungi or bacteria; or state; 3 meters for agricultural lands). Municipal increased presence of substances in concentraons or management plans and recreaonal use are combinaons such that they are harmful, toxic or encouraged. produce an adverse physiological effect or behavioral problems among humans or in aquac, semi‐aquac Furthermore, water quality standards have been or terrestrial forms of life. These criteria provide a adopted for Lake Champlain in the November 2009 basis for evaluang water quality or defining when Surface Water Quality Criteria. The Ministère du treatment intervenon is required. Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP) is responsible for establishing State requirements for the protecon of human health and

Page 51

Chapter 4. Suitability

The Agency of Natural Resources’ Basin 6 [Missisquoi Vermont’s surface waters per the federal Clean Water Basin Watershed] Water Quality Management Plan Act. The VWQS are a set of regulaons that classify (November, 2012) is the most recent Missisquoi Basin each water body, establish designated uses (such as Plan. The basin planning process serves to integrate swimming and fishing) that must be protected, and set topics of special local concern with water quality criteria for chemical, physical and biological aributes issues of State importance, and make management of State waters that must be aained in order to recommendaons on these topics. Basin planning falls protect the designated uses. under the Statewide Surface Water Management Strategy which focuses management, planning, The following water quality policy for Vermont is set regulatory and funding efforts on basin‐specific forth in 10 V.S.A. § 1250 of the Vermont Statutes, and stressors, which are idenfied and priorized in a addresses the direcve of the Clean Water Act that collaborave effort among all stakeholders – state and requires states to maintain and restore the “chemical, local governments, landowners, watershed physical, and biological integrity of the Naon’s associaons and regional planning commissions. waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1250).

The Agency of Natural Resources exercises the It is the policy of the State of Vermont to: authority for the management and protecon of 1) Protect and enhance the quality, character and Vermont’s water resources, including promulgaon of usefulness of its surface waters and to assure the Water Quality Standards (VWQS) and Rules for the public health; Use of Public Waters. The VWQS provide a 2) maintain the purity of drinking water; framework for the protecon and management of

Table 4. Water quality protecon in local planning and zoning in Upper Missisquoi and Trout River Wild and Scenic Study area towns.

TOWN PLAN LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING & SUBDIVISION)

Require Include Reference ANR Include Flood Water Quality Preservation of Stormwater Require Setback/ Municipalities Stormwater Hazard Area Goals? Natural Mgmt Buffer? Manual? Regulations? Resources? Standards?

Berkshire Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (100’)

Enosburg Falls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (50‐100’)

Enosburgh Yes Yes No No Yes Yes (25‐110’)

Montgomery Yes No No No Yes No

Richford Yes No No No Yes No

Jay Yes No No No Yes Yes (50’)

Lowell Yes No No No No No

North Troy Yes Yes No No No No

Troy Yes Yes No No No No

Westield Yes No No No Yes Yes (50’)

Page 52

Chapter 4. Suitability

3) control the discharge of wastes to the waters of the improvement of the water quality and aquac habitat State, prevent degradaon of high quality waters and in the Missisquoi Basin. Please see the Missisquoi prevent, abate or control all acvies harmful to water Basin Watershed Water Quality Management Plan for

quality; a discussion of these organizaons and ongoing 4) assure the maintenance of water quality necessary projects. to sustain exisng aquac communies; 5) provide clear, consistent and enforceable standards There are a large number of organizaons currently for the perming and management of discharges; working in the Missisquoi Watershed to reduce water 6) protect from risk and preserve in their natural state quality issues in the basin. These organizaons have certain high quality waters, including fragile high‐ many programs working to improve water quality on altude waters, and the ecosystems they sustain; the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers such as employing 7) manage the waters of the State to promote a agricultural Best Management Pracces. The Study healthy and prosperous agricultural community, to Commiee supports the exisng programs occurring increase the opportunies for use of the State's forest, in the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers watersheds to park and recreaonal facilies, and to allow beneficial maintain or improve riparian buffers and the current and environmentally sound development. efforts to support agricultural best management It is further the policy of the State to seek over the pracces. Federal funds and permits are currently long term to upgrade the quality of waters and to ulized in many of the agriculture best management reduce exisng risks to water quality. pracce programs and water quality iniaves currently employed along the Missisquoi and Trout As the Management Plan was being prepared, the Rivers. Watershed Management Division completed the Act 110 was enacted by the Vermont State Legislature Missisquoi Basin Watershed Water Quality in 2011 (10 V.S.A. Chapter 49 and 24 V.S.A. Chapter Management Plan, which describes the current state 11) in order to place protecons on river corridors and of the Missisquoi River Basin, addresses water quality buffers. There were several reasons for this issues in the watershed and outlines plans to legislaon, including maintaining the safety of improving both water quality and aquac habitat. The waterways (such as migaon of flood risk), protecng Study Commiee and Watershed Management water quality, preserving habitat for fish and other Division coordinated efforts with the common goal of aquac life, regulang building sites to reduce flooding protecng water quality. The Vermont Agency of and property damage, and allowing for mulple uses Natural Resources (ANR) Watershed Management of State waters for all Vermonters. The Act also Division’s Basin Plan presents the recommendaons of promotes the protecon of vegetated buffers along a cross secon of stakeholders, including residents of rivers, which help to prevent and control water the basin, the VT ANR, and professionals from other polluon, aid in channel, bank and floodplain stability, State and federal agencies meant to guide efforts in reduce flooding, and preserve the habitat for both the Basin over the next five years. Please see this aquac and terrestrial wildlife. Act 110 empowers Basin Plan available on the VT ANR website (hp:// municipalies to adopt bylaws to regulate zoning and www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/planning/htm/ development acvity along river corridors, and adopt pl_missisquoi.htm). This Basin Plan discusses the Best Management Pracces (BMPs) for river corridor greatest impairments and threats to water quality in and buffer maintenance. Addionally, there are the Basin, which include sedimentaon, siltaon, financial incenves available from the State of turbidity, habitat alteraons, nutrients, thermal Vermont to municipalies that adopt and implement modificaons, flow alteraons and metals, as well as zoning regulaons protecng river corridors and physical instability and river corridor encroachment. buffers. Though non‐regulatory in nature, this Basin Plan seeks to illustrate strategies, and specific acons for

Page 53

Chapter 4. Suitability

Table 5. Agricultural and Conservaon Groups working within the Study area.

Program Purpose

United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service's goals are to reduce soil erosion, enhance water supplies, improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce damages caused by loods and other natural disasters. NRCS offers inancial and technical assistance to USDA NRCS (Federal) farmers in the Missisquoi Basin (through a variety of programs). The Missisquoi Basin has been selected as a prioritized watershed in the Critical Source Areas (CSAs) computer model which identiied phosphorus source areas to the Missisquoi Bay.

Vermont NRCS The Study area falls within both the Northeast and Northwest VT zones. The NRCS ield ofice in each Ofices zone provides technical assistance and funding to protect soils, water, air, plants and animals.

VT Association of Conservation Districts is a non‐proit organization formed to conduct educational, scientiic, charitable work concerning conservation, maintenance, improvement and development and VACD (Non‐ use of land, soil, water, trees, vegetation, ish and wildlife and other natural resources in Vermont, and governmental) is made up of members from VT's Natural Resource Conservation Districts. These Conservation Districts were established to allow NRCS to be situated in local and regional ofices, and to give federal employees the ability to work locally.

The Lake Champlain Basin Program works to coordinate and fund efforts which beneit the Lake LCBP (Inter‐ Champlain Basin's water quality, isheries, wetlands, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources governmental) (including programs on private lands to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs in the Lake).

Lake Champlain Committee is dedicated to protecting Lake Champlain’s environmental integrity and recreational resources for this and future generations through science‐based advocacy, education and LCC (Non‐ collaborative action. They support Best Management Practices for farms and the adoption of nutrient governmental) management plans to reduce phosphorus loading from agriculture, and helped establish numeric water quality standards for phosphorus levels in the lake.

Missisquoi River Basin Association is a volunteer organization which mobilizes community members to conduct projects which improve water quality. On work days volunteers plant trees to create MRBA (Non‐ streamside buffers, line culvert outlows and ditches with rock, fence off livestock, and seed areas of governmental) bare soil. MRBA has recently begun the process of administering the Trees for Streams program on the Missisquoi through funds available from the Ecosystem Restoration Program.

Friends of Northern Works with projects on ag lands to clean and protect the waters of Northern Lake Champlain, and to Lake Champlain (Non reduce polluted land‐use runoff into Lake Champlain. ‐governmental)

The Franklin and Grand Isle Farmer’s Watershed Alliance's mission is to insure environmentally positive solutions and enable the dairy industry through education and funding to better the soil, air, FWA (Non‐ and water of the Lake Champlain Watershed while remaining economically viable. Secondly, to governmental) promote and defend dairy farming to further its future as one of the largest contributors to the State’s economy. The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets’ Division of Agricultural Resource Management VAAFM works to assist farmers in protecting water resources. Page 54

Chapter 4. Suitability

Vermont has a specific set of laws regarding the excavang or disturbing the soil or dumping waste, protecons of wetlands, knows as Vermont Wetland among other exclusions. Rules. Wetlands in Vermont are placed into one of Enosburgh has specific bylaws prohibing a number three Classes: I, II or III. Most mapped wetlands in of acvies in the buffer around their waterways. Vermont (as part of the Naonal Wetland Inventory) This comprehensive list offers strong protecons for are Class II wetlands. Class I Wetland designaon is maintaining water quality. The prohibions include: reserved for those wetlands that are “exceponal or irreplaceable in their contribuon to Vermont’s a) No alteraon of streambed or bank, except to natural heritage and merit the highest level of reduce erosion, perform AAPs [Accepted protecon.” Agricultural Pracces] and maintenance of stream crossings for agricultural purposes; Local b) In general, disturbances to natural vegetaon are prohibited. These include disturbances by tree Enosburgh/Enosburg Falls removal, clearing, burning, and spraying. No Enosburgh and Berkshire have zoning provisions pescide use or storage; regarding adequate treatment of stormwater runoff, c) No sepc fields in the buffer; which helps to migate the sediments and pollutants d) No storage for motorized vehicles. No use of that wash off the land during storm events. motorized vehicles except for approved Most towns have bylaws regulang land use in maintenance and emergency use; designated Flood Hazard Areas (FHA), which are e) No sewage disposal systems may be located within generally defined as the 100‐year floodplain or as 300 feet of normal high water level of a water determined by the Naonal Flood Insurance Program. supply or within 200 feet of the banks of any Commonly, these provisions limit or prohibit stream that feeds into a water supply; construcon of buildings in floodways and FHAs unless f) No soil disturbance from grading, plowing, except granted a special excepon. Most towns with FHA with approved soil conservaon and water quality provisions have specific language prohibing the plan; placement of junkyards or storage of hazardous g) No mining or excavaon, except exisng uses, no materials in the floodway. dredging except as permied by State law; h) No deposit or landfill or reuse, solid or liquid A number of the Study area towns and villages have waste; fill allowed only as approved by the Army bylaws establishing a building setback distance from Corps of Engineers; waterways – a minimum allowable buffer between i) No storage of materials; development and any river, stream, lake or pond j) No dumping; (wetlands have their own set of applicable State laws, k) No fill to expand development area. as detailed above). Enosburgh and Enosburg Falls both have sliding scales of setback distances. In Enosburgh and Enosburg Falls both have instuted Enosburgh the setback distance depends on the slope progressive zoning districts that afford addional of the land. The bylaws of Enosburgh and Enosburg protecons to natural resources in the towns. Of Falls include requirements that the natural vegetaon note, Enosburgh has a Natural Resources Overlay within the setback buffer be maintained. Enosburgh District (§570 of Zoning Bylaws), which includes

also includes spulaons that limit or prohibit “significant geologic features, unusual or important destrucve acvies within the buffer, including the plant and animal qualies of scienfic, ecological, or disrupon of the natural vegetave buffer, storage of educaonal interest make lands in this district motor vehicles or other potenal contaminang unsuitable for intensive development because of their materials, presence of sepc fields or tanks, local, statewide, naonal and global significance. Included are steep slopes, rare and endangered

Page 55

Chapter 4. Suitability

species, waterways… and significant wildlife habitat. lands, while also protecng the water quality of the Designaon of this district is intended to protect… Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. scenic and natural resource values.” All municipalies that would fall within designated Enosburgh and Enosburg Falls both have Conservaon river segments except for Richford, and Troy/North Districts, which intend to add a layer of protecon to Troy have setbacks or buffers required by their zoning areas found to be important for the value of their bylaws. Allowable acvity within these buffers varies. natural resources. The Enosburg Falls Conservaon Though Vermont does not have a state‐wide buffer District (§2.3 of Enosburg Falls zoning bylaws) was law, the Agency of Natural Resources is at the established “…to protect the scenic and natural forefront of river management based on resource value of lands which lack direct access to geomorphology and natural river processes. Recently, public roads, are important for wildlife and wildlife Act 110 was passed that empowers municipalies, habitat, and which are poorly suited for through technical assistance and financial incenves, development.” These districts place strict protecons to adopt zoning bylaws to protect vegetated buffers on allowable land uses in natural areas deemed to be along rivers, restrict development acvity along river of environmental or recreaonal significance. corridors to allow rivers to meander naturally, and adopt Best Management Pracces (BMPs) for river See Table 4 for more informaon on local protecons. corridors and buffer maintenance. It is very likely that upcoming zoning reviews and Town Plan updates 1 In Franklin County, 4,149.5 acres of land within a /4 within the area will take advantage of this new Act and mile of the Missisquoi River are agricultural lands. Of strengthen their protecons of river riparian areas. those about 73% are hay and croplands. Around 30 acres are in the Conservaon Reserve Enhancement The Naonal Park Service has assessed these local Program (CREP). There are also about 293 acres in protecons, and believes they will protect and agricultural easement. In Orleans County, 6,100.9 enhance the Wild and Scenic River values adequately. 1 acres of land within a /4 mile of the Missisquoi River The communies regularly review and strengthen are agricultural lands. Of those about 37% are hay Town Plans, and are proacve in protecng resources. and croplands. Around 30 acres are in CREP, including In areas such as Enosburgh and Enosburg Falls, where two large projects along the Missisquoi River in Troy the populaon density is highest in the area proposed and Wesield in the CREP forested buffer iniave. for designaon, regulaons are more stringent due to There are also about 82 acres in agricultural easement. the increased pressure on land use. In the more rural 1 In Franklin County, 2,503.8 acres of land within a /4 areas, exisng regulaons adequately protect river mile of the Trout River are agricultural lands. Of those values. The status of regulaons reflects current land about 41% are hay and croplands. Around 2 acres are use, and many parcels of land are under easement. in the Conservaon Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). There are also about 87 acres (3.5%) in Historic and Cultural Protecons agricultural easement. These data provided by the Natural Resource Conservaon Service are from 2008, Federal and numbers of easement and CREP projects have increased since then. Vermont Agency of Agriculture, The Naonal Register of Historic Places is part of a Food and Markets staff and Natural Resource naonal program to coordinate and support public Conservaon Service (NRCS) staff, among others, are and private efforts to idenfy, evaluate, and protect oen working on new projects in the Study area America's historic and archeological resources. municipalies. These oen voluntary Best Historic sites may be entered in the Naonal Historic Management Pracces and easements show the Register aer nominaons are submied by historians commitment of towns to protect working agricultural and/or archaeologists, usually employed by the

Page 56

Chapter 4. Suitability

property owner. In Vermont, the nominaons are looks at possible negave impacts on historic generally cooperavely prepared with the State resources including those sites listed on the Vermont Division for Historic Preservaon. In the towns where Register of Historic Places and any potenally nominaons are being prepared, planning historically, architecturally, archeologically or commissions and property owners are given the culturally signiﬁcant sites. opportunity to support or reject lisng in the Naonal Register. Nominaons are reviewed by the Vermont Local Advisory Council on Historic Preservaon before they are submied to the Naonal Park Service, which Berkshire oversees the Naonal Registry and makes the ﬁnal The following informaon is listed in Berkshire’s Town determinaon regarding the site’s inclusion in the Zoning Bylaws: Naonal Register. Secon 8.6 ROADS AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS: Roads Regional shall, to the extent feasible, be designed and laid out to: avoid adverse impacts to natural, historic, cultural The Northwest Regional Planning Commission’s and scenic resources. (NRPC) Regional Plan for 2007‐2012 states that

“Historic structures, community facilies, and other Secon 9.5 OPEN SPACE AND COMMON LAND: A) buildings should be preserved and adapted for re‐ Intent. Planned Unit Developments shall be designed use.” They also suggest ulizing federal, state, and to preserve open space and/or common land for local programs for developing or preserving local parks, recreaon, crical areas as idenﬁed in the cultural and historic assets. Berkshire Comprehensive Town Plan, agricultural land,

scenic views, and/or historic site protecon. The Northeastern Vermont Development Associaon’s

(NVDA) Regional Plan (2006) suggests a 200 foot The Berkshire Town Plan (adopted 4/26/10) also sets buﬀer to protect archeologically signiﬁcant areas forth the goal to protect in good quality the abundant found along the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. Goals in natural and historic resources in Berkshire. this Plan include preserving important historical

structures and mapping potenal archeological sites. Montgomery

The following informaon is listed in the Town of State Montgomery’s Town Zoning Bylaws:

With regard to telecommunicaon tower The State of Vermont intends that municipalies, placement: 6.6.3 Addionally, freestanding regional planning commissions and State agencies telecommunicaons towers or antennas over connue to idenfy, protect and preserve important 20 feet in elevaon may not be located in any natural and historic features of the Vermont of the following locaons: 6.6.3.3 Within 500 landscape, including important historic structures, . horizontally from any Historic District or sites, or districts, archaeological sites and property eligible to be listed on the Federal archaeologically sensive areas (24A V.S.A. § 4412). Historic Register. 6.6.3.7 Within 1 ~ x height The placement of wireless telecommunicaon towers horizontally of any known archeological site. is also restricted when the facility may adversely 6.12 Tower and Antenna Design impact an historic site (24 V.S.A. § 2291). Requirements: Proposed facilies shall not

unreasonably interfere with the view from any The Vermont Division for Historic Preservaon reviews public park, natural scenic vista, historic and comments on projects involving State funding, building or district, or major view corridor. licenses or permits under The Vermont Historic Preservaon Act (22 V.S.A. Chapter 14). This review

Page 57

Chapter 4. Suitability

The Montgomery Town Plan (amended and updated Subcommiee). All towns in the Study area except Jay 8/2010) also sets forth the goal to recognize the role have Historical Sociees where members presented of Montgomery’s archeological, historic, and scenic Study Commiee findings and requested input about resources in shaping the Town’s present quality of life historic and cultural resources as these sociees are and future opportunies. invested in protecng them. The Northern Forest Canoe Trail and the Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail have Local Support been supporve of the Study and are partners in the management of the recreaonal resources in the area The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic proposed for designaon. Troy has a Water Board, Study Commiee began meeng regularly at the end and Montgomery has a Covered Bridge and Garden of 2009 to fulfill its mission of supporng the Study Club which is important since the covered bridges in process through facilitang public involvement, Town are collecvely an ORV. Table 5 summarizes the guiding research on potenal ORVs, developing the major organizaons in the Study area which support Management Plan and assessing local support for the the management of these rivers regardless of designaon. A high level of volunteer commitment designaon, but which would be good partners should was displayed throughout the course of the Study. designaon occur. The Study Commiee stated its intenon to connue meeng unl the river gains designaon, at which Favorable votes at the March 2013 Town me a transion to the post‐designaon Wild and demonstrated local support for the Management Plan Scenic Commiee would occur. The Study Commiee and designaon by Congress with the intenon that indicated substanal interest and commitment to designaon would not bring addional federal iniang implementaon of acons outlined in the acquision or management of lands. Berkshire, Management Plan during the me prior to potenal Enosburgh/Enosburg Falls, Montgomery, Richford, designaon. In fact, the Commiee already Troy/North Troy, and Wesield all voted in favor of parcipated in some local projects to further the goals peoning Congress to include the upper Missisquoi of the Management Plan. The Study Commiee and Trout Rivers as components of the Naonal Wild supports the preferred Alternave B for Full and Scenic Rivers System. Designaon. This alternave would designate the upper Missisquoi River from the Wesield/Lowell Management Framework Town Line to Canada (excluding the property and project areas of the North Troy and Troy hydroelectric The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic facilies) and from Canada 14.6 miles to the upstream Management Plan, together with the Upper border of the project boundary for the dam in Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Enosburg Falls; and the enre 11.0 miles of the Trout Commiee provide a framework to meet the purposes River. of the Wild and Scenic River Act. This type of management framework has proven to be a successful Many local, state, regional and federal organizaons approach in providing management, coordinaon, and and agencies work for the preservaon and implementaon on the twelve other Partnership Wild improvement of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. and Scenic Rivers. Selectboards and Planning Commissions were consulted and kept abreast of Study Commiee Development of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers progress, and all Selectboards wrote leers in favor of Wild and Scenic Management Plan (Management the Study. Enosburgh/Enosburg Falls, Montgomery Plan) was one of the main goals of the Study and Richford have Conservaon Commissions, many Commiee, and the final, completed Management members of which are on the Study Commiee as Plan is available as a companion document to this official appointees (Troy has a Natural Resource Study Report. The Management Plan is a guidance

Page 58

Chapter 4. Suitability

document for protecon and enhancement of the this Commiee’s responsibility to monitor the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. It details the Outstandingly Remarkable Values, free‐flowing management framework and protecon strategies and character and water quality with respect to the degree standards for locally idenfied Outstandingly they are protected or enhanced during Remarkable Values (ORVs), free‐flowing condions, implementaon of the Plan, and to monitor proposed and water quality. Each of the eight municipalies projects that may threaten them. The purpose of the included in the area proposed for designaon formally Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic endorsed the Management Plan through votes at their Commiee is to lead and coordinate implementaon March 2013 Town Meengs. Endorsement of the of the Management Plan by:

Management Plan by the local municipalies  Bringing together various partners and substanates suitability for designaon by stakeholders responsible for river management demonstrang local commitment to coordinated river  Facilitang agreements, cooperaon and management and preservaon of local resources coordinaon among these partners through the recommendaons in the Plan.  Providing a forum and coordinaon for river interests to discuss and carry out Though exisng protecons are deemed adequate, it recommendaons for river management is important to ensure opmal protecon of the ORVs,  Assisng the Naonal Park Service in water quality, and free‐flowing character of the implementaon of the Wild and Scenic River Missisquoi and Trout Rivers due to threats and designaon and expenditure of potenal federal changing condions. funding for Management Plan implementaon (subject to Wild and Scenic River designaon and In the Management Plan, the Study Commiee appropriaon of funds) idenfied a protecon goal for each ORV, idenfied  Assisng the Naonal Park Service in the Secon 7 management issues and threats to ORVs, noted review of potenally adverse federal water potenal gaps between these threats and exisng resource development projects protecons, and recommended acons for improving  Reviewing and updang the Management Plan protecon or enhancement of the ORVs and partners  Preparing periodic status reports for the river to work with to this end. communies, and reporng these to member municipalies and stakeholders The Management Plan calls for the creaon of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Designaon Effects Commiee to coordinate and oversee implementaon of the Plan. It is envisioned that this post‐designaon General Effects of the Partnership Model Commiee would lead the Management Plan implementaon process through educaon, outreach, Designaon would make permanent most of the and coordinaon with partner organizaons should effects in place during the Study period. For example, Wild and Scenic Rivers designaon occur, and be rivers under study have the same, or somemes even comprised of key local and state stakeholders more stringent, protecons afforded by the Wild and including appointed representaves from the Scenic Rivers Act for designated rivers; Secon 7(b) municipalies that border the river. Local partners on applies to study rivers, and Secon 7(a) applies to the Study Commiee are in support of such an designated rivers. As a result, the Study process organizaon connuing. It will be vital for the Upper allows communies to experience the effects of Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic designaon before they commit to moving forward Commiee to develop and maintain local, state and with it. In addion, study rivers have Wild and Scenic regional partnerships to work toward the short and Commiees and levels of Naonal Park Service (NPS) long‐term Management Plan goals. It would also be involvement which are similar to those that would

Page 59

Chapter 4. Suitability

occur aer designaon. In essence, the Study period designaon on land and water resources, as well as is a trial run for the river stakeholders and socio‐economic factors. communies. Effects on Dams The NPS encouraged broad parcipaon of local stakeholders in the Study process and spent Because of the moratorium on new hydroelectric substanal me and effort considering and explaining projects or dams, the Study process included an in‐ the effects of the designaon. In a general sense, the depth examinaon of the effects of designaon on the Study partners became well acquainted with the three dams in the Study area in Troy, North Troy and effects of designaon under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Enosburg Falls. The study assessed the exisng dams Act during the Study process. As stated in the on the rivers in conjuncon with the help of the Summary and Chapter 1 of this Report, the Agency of Natural Resource’s Department of Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers model was Environmental Conservaon’s Streamflow Protecon established for designaon and management for those Coordinator. rivers predominantly in private, municipal or state, as opposed to federal, ownership. The Partnership Rivers (Note: The upstream influence of the following dams in New England demonstrate the potenal effects of was determined during the issuance of the State of designaon under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and Vermont Secon 401s Water Quality Cerficates. This thoroughly exploring the other nearby rivers qualitave determinaon by the Vermont ANR of designated under this model was part of the Study where the river slows due to the dam under normal process. Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers model flow condions is where the upstream point of features include: influence of the impoundment is obvious at the me.  no reliance on federal land ownership or Though each of these dams do have upstream management influence, for the purposes of WSR the Missisquoi  reliance on local and state regulaons and River remains riverine, and meets the criteria of a management as before designaon recreaonal classificaon.)  administraon and implementaon of a locally led Management Plan facilitated by a locally  The Troy Hydroelectric Project in Troy on the appointed, broadly parcipatory Wild and Scenic Missisquoi River has not operated since 1998. The Commiee, convened for each river specifically for project received from the Federal Energy this purpose Regulatory Commission (FERC) an exempon  responsibility for management of river resources (FERC Project Number P‐13381 in 2001). As of shared between the local, state, and federal October 2012, work is underway on the civil works partners on the Commiee to restart the project. The NPS and Study  requires no establishment of a Naonal Park or Commiee have already indicated to FERC in superintendent or law enforcement agent from wring that this project (including the project the Naonal Park Service lands owned by the Chase family) has been  does not require purchase or transfer of lands to excluded from the proposed designaon area, and the NPS that its proposed operaon as a run‐of‐river  succeeds through voluntary educaon, outreach, facility will not have an adverse impact to management efforts and local support potenally designated areas upstream or down. Because the Missisquoi River has two channels in In addion to a general exploraon of the effects and this project area, based on FERC project boundary track record of the Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers and project related lands, the exclusion area for model, Chapter 5 analyzes the likely effects of the this project was measured along the longer (eastern) channel (see Appendix 5 for more

Page 60

Chapter 4. Suitability

informaon on these dams). This gave an the stage of the river are acceptable under the exclusion of 0.27 miles (1,408 feet). Wild and recreaonal classificaon. Scenic Rivers designaon will have no effect on this facility provided that any changes proposed  The Enosburg Falls Hydroelectric Facility (also for its operaon are consistent with the purposes known as the Kendall Plant) on the Missisquoi of the proposed designaon. The upstream River is operang and licensed by FERC (FERC P‐ influence of this dam, according to the State of 2905, license expires 2023). This facility will not Vermont Secon 401s Water Quality Cerficate, is be part of designaon, since the designated area 2,100 feet. It was determined that this enre would end upstream of the project boundary. upstream influence need not be excluded from Wild and Scenic Rivers designaon will have no proposed designaon because it does not impact effect on this facility provided that any changes the free‐flowing character of this secon of the proposed for its operaon are consistent with the river, nor does it inundate the land or create a purposes of the proposed designaon. All the reservoir. The riverine appearance and only slight property boundaries are below the right of way for rising of the stage of the river are acceptable Route 108; however, the project boundary is under the recreaonal classificaon. upstream of this bridge in Sampsonville. Proposed designaon would end on the upstream side of  The North Troy Project (formerly Missisquoi River the project boundary, 14.6 miles from the Technologies) on the Missisquoi River in the Canadian border. The upstream influence of this Village of North Troy is not‐operang and has a dam, according to the State of Vermont Secon FERC exempon (FERC P‐10172) issued in 1989. 401s Water Quality Cerficate, is 4.3 miles. The project was acquired by Missisquoi River Hydro, LLC (MRH), and the new owners are acvely seeking to renew operaons. Designaon would have no effect on the exisng FERC exempon for this facility as it has been excluded from the proposed designaon area. Wild and Scenic Rivers designaon will have no effect on this facility provided that any changes proposed for its operaon are consistent with the purposes of the proposed designaon. The project boundary of this facility, which is between Route 105 and the Canadian Pacific Railroad, has been excluded from proposed designaon, along with the adjacent property owned by MRH. This is 0.11miles (585 feet) of the Missisquoi River along the lands owned by MRH. The upstream influence of this dam, according to the State of Vermont Secon 401s Water Quality Cerficate, is 8,000 feet. It was determined that this enre upstream influence need not be excluded from proposed designaon because it does not impact the free‐ flowing character of this secon of the river, nor does it inundate the land or create a reservoir. Figure 20. Study Commiee members toured the Troy The riverine appearance and only slight rising of Hydroelectric Facility which is excluded from proposed designaon. Photo by Shana Stewart Deeds.

Page 61

Chapter 4. Suitability

Summary of General Findings on Suitability support to make the rivers suitable for designaon under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act based on the Analysis of exisng local, state, federal, and non‐ Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers model. regulatory protecons applicable to the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are found to adequately Segment‐by‐Segment Suitability Findings protect the rivers and to be consistent with the purposes of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. These Please refer to Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion protecons, combined with local support for river regarding eligibility of river segments. preservaon, provide substanal protecon to the rivers and their adjacent lands. When combined Segment 1 Lowell/Wesield Town Line to North with the protecons that would be provided through Troy/Canadian Border (Suitable): Of the the Wild and Scenic Rivers designaon, the upper approximately 25‐mile segment of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers’ Outstandingly Missisquoi from its headwaters in Lowell to the Remarkable Values, free‐flowing character, and water Canadian border in North Troy, 20.5 miles of the quality would be adequately protected without the upper Missisquoi River in this Segment 1 are suitable need for federal land acquision or federal land for designaon. This river segment is proposed as the ownership and management. beginning of the upper Missisquoi River Wild and Scenic area and therefore is determined to be This finding is consistent with similar findings that administered as part of the designated upper have been made for each of the exisng Partnership Missisquoi River Wild and Scenic Rivers segment. The Wild and Scenic Rivers, whereby the designang upper Missisquoi River in Orleans County from the legislaon for each of those rivers has prohibited the Lowell/Wesield Town border is found to be suitable federal condemnaon of lands, as provided for by for designaon with the exclusion of the Troy and Secon 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It is North Troy Hydroelectric facilies. This Segment 1 ancipated that any designang legislaon for the would fall under the Upper Missisquoi and Trout upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers will likewise River Wild and Scenic Commiee which would include such provisions. The Management Plan has include a Town of Lowell (should they choose to been developed with input from and to meet the parcipate), Town of Wesield, Town of Troy and needs of local, state, and federal stakeholders. It has Village of North Troy representave should it be been endorsed as the Management Plan for the designated. This segment of the upper Missisquoi upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers by the voters in River is found to be suitable for designaon based on Berkshire, Town of Enosburgh, Village of Enosburg the support from the voters of the Town of Wesield, Falls, Montgomery, Village of North Troy, Richford, Town of Troy and Village of North Troy at their March the Town of Troy, and Wesield. 2013 Town Meengs.

The Management Plan would be ulized as the The hydroelectric facilies in Troy (0.27 miles) and “Comprehensive Management Plan” called for by North Troy (0.11 miles) make these porons of the Secon 3(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act should Missisquoi River unsuitable due to their current FERC the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers be designated licenses. as components of the naonal system. The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan, as  The Troy Hydroelectric Project on the Missisquoi implemented by the future Upper Missisquoi and River in Troy (currently owned by the Chases – Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Commiee provides an Not Currently Suitable). This 0.27 mi or 1,408 appropriate and eﬀecve management framework foot segment extends along the Chase property for the long‐term management and protecon of the and FERC project boundary for the Troy watercourses. It is concluded that there is suﬃcient Hydroelectric project, and includes the Troy

Page 62

Chapter 4. Suitability

Hydroelectric Dam (somemes also referred to as at a duly warned Town Meeng concerning its the Bakers Falls dam or the old Cizens Ulies designaon. Should designaon be supported by Company dam). This segment of the upper the voters of Lowell, this 3.8 mile segment would Missisquoi River is found to be unsuitable based be both eligible and suitable for designaon. on the FERC exempon and connued interest in hydropower re‐development at this site. In the Segment 2 Canadian Border/Richford to Enosburgh event that this project is dropped from (Suitable): Of the approximately 25‐mile segment consideraon or otherwise abandoned, the from the Canadian border in East Richford to suitability of this segment could be re‐evaluated Enosburg Falls, 14.6 miles of the upper Missisquoi based on local, state and stakeholder interest. River are found suitable for designaon. This segment would fall under the Upper Missisquoi and  The North Troy Hydroelectric Project on the Trout River Wild and Scenic Commiee which would Missisquoi River in North Troy (currently owned include a Town of Richford, Town of Berkshire, Town by Hilton Dier III, Missisquoi River Hydro [MRH] of Enosburgh and Village of Enosburg Falls – Not Currently Suitable). This 0.11 mile or 585 representave should it be designated. This segment foot segment extends along the property and of the upper Missisquoi River is found to be suitable FERC project boundary of this facility, which is for designaon based on the support from the voters between Route 105 and the Canadian Pacific of the Town of Richford, Town of Berkshire, Town of Railroad, and the adjacent property owned by Enosburgh and Village of Enosburg Falls at their MRH. This segment of the upper Missisquoi River March 2013 Town Meengs. is found to be unsuitable based on the FERC exempon and connued interest in hydropower Suitability stops at the project boundary of the re‐development at this site. In the event that this Enosburg Falls hydroelectric facility due to the wishes project is dropped from consideraon or of the Village of Enosburg Falls. The free‐flowing otherwise abandoned, the suitability of this character of an addional lowermost 4.7 miles of this segment could be re‐evaluated based on local, segment of Missisquoi River remains despite the state and stakeholder interest. inclusion this secon in the FERC project boundary of the Enosburg Falls hydroelectric project. Should the  The upper Missisquoi River in Lowell (Not project boundary ever be reduced, the secon of the Currently Suitable). This 3.8 mile segment of the Missisquoi up to the Route 108 bridge (19.3 miles Missisquoi River flows from the confluence of total from the Canadian border) would be both Burgess Branch and the East Branch of the eligible and suitable for designaon. Though Missisquoi in Lowell, VT, Orleans County to the Enosburgh and Enosburg Falls will have few Lowell/Wesield Town border. This segment of designated mainstem reaches should designaon the upper Missisquoi River is found to be occur as proposed, they will be treated as full unsuitable for designaon at this me based on parcipants in the local, post‐designaon commiee the lack of sufficient support from the voters of (as they have during the Study) and in the the Town of Lowell at their March 2013 Town implementaon of the Management Plan. Meeng. In the event the voters of Lowell express a preference for designaon in a future  The Enosburg Falls Hydroelectric Project on the vote, the suitability of this segment could be Missisquoi River in Enosburg Falls (currently reevaluated. It is envisioned that in determining owned by the Village of Enosburg Falls—Not whether there is adequate local support for the Currently Suitable). Designaon ends upstream designaon of the addional segment, the of the Enosburg Falls Hydroelectric facility (also Secretary would consider the preferences of the known as the Kendall Plant – owned by the majority of the local voters expressed as an arcle Village of Enosburg Falls and operated by

Page 63

Chapter 4. Suitability

Enosburg Falls Water and Light) which is not a part of the Study, and thus were not voted on by suitable for designaon based on the FERC municipalies to be included in designaon. exempon and connued interest in hydropower re‐development at this site. In the event that this Tributaries listed by municipality:

project is dropped from consideraon, the ‐Berkshire: Berry Brook and Trout Brook project boundary is reduced, or the project is ‐Enosburgh/Enosburg Falls: Beaver Meadow Brook otherwise abandoned, the suitability of this ‐Jay: Jay Branch segment could be re‐evaluated based on local, ‐Lowell: Burgess Branch and East Branch of the state and stakeholder interest. All property Missisquoi River boundaries are below the right of way for Route ‐Montgomery: Hannah Clark Brook, Jay Brook, South 108. Proposed designaon ends at the upstream Branch of the Trout River, Wade Brook and West border of the project boundary in Sampsonville, Brook but could be extended to the upstream side of ‐Richford: Black Falls Brook, Loveland Brook and the Route 108 bridge, 19.3 miles from the Stanhope Brook Canadian border, should it become suitable. ‐Troy/North Troy: Beetle Brook, Cook Brook and Tamarack Brook Segment 3 Trout River (Suitable). Of the ‐Wesield: Coburn Brook, Mill Brook, Mineral Spring approximately 20‐mile segment of the Trout River Brook and Ta Brook. (including the tributary called the South Branch of the Trout River) from its headwaters to its confluence The Missisquoi and Trout River tributaries were not with the Missisquoi River, the enre 11.0 miles of the evaluated for suitability based on a desire to move mainstem of the Trout River in this Segment 3 in forward with designaon of the mainstem of the Franklin County (which runs from the confluence of Rivers, and ming constraints on the Study. In the Jay and Wade Brooks in Montgomery, through event that there is a vote by the Study area Towns Enosburgh to where it joins the Missisquoi in East and support is expressed in a vote by the legal voters Berkshire) is found to be suitable for designaon. of the towns, the tributaries of the Missisquoi River This segment would fall under the Upper Missisquoi which are eligible for designaon would then become and Trout River Wild and Scenic Commiee which suitable based on local interest and support. Should would include a Town of Montgomery, Town of designaon be supported by the voters of any Study Enosburgh and Town of Berkshire representave area town, the tributaries within that town would be should it be designated. The Trout River is found to both eligible and suitable for designaon. be suitable for designaon based on the support from the voters of the Town of Montgomery, Town of Summary Enosburgh and Town of Berkshire at their March 2013 Town Meengs plus addional factors of suitability The Study concludes that approximately 35.1 miles of discussed in the chapter. the upper Missisquoi and 11.0 miles of the Trout River are currently eligible and suitable for Segment 4 Tributaries (Not Currently Suitable). The designaon under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. tributaries of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers The upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are both (which are defined as 3rd order streams and above) assigned a preliminary classificaon of recreaonal. are unsuitable for designaon at this me. The specific tributaries listed below were studied in more An addional 4.7 miles of the Missisquoi River detail and are free‐flowing and contain ORVs. impacted by the hydroelectric facility in Enosburg Addional unlisted tributaries are expected to be Falls is found unsuitable but eligible. A 3.8 mile similarly free‐flowing with ORVs. None of these segment in Lowell is also found eligible but not addional tributaries were evaluated for suitability as suitable. The hydroelectric facilies in Troy (0.27

Page 64

Chapter 4. Suitability

miles) and North Troy (0.11miles) make these Missisquoi and Trout Rivers are found to porons of the Missisquoi River ineligible and adequately protect the rivers consistent with the unsuitable for designaon. The Missisquoi and Trout purposes of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The River tributaries were not evaluated for suitability Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and based on a desire to move forward with designaon Scenic Management Plan developed as part of of the mainstem of the Rivers, and ming constraints the Study provides an appropriate management on the Study. The tributaries which were explored framework for the long term management and were found eligible for designaon due to their free‐ protecon of the waterways. flowing character and ORVs; however, no suitability analysis was completed. Their inclusion was not  The official record of endorsement from local explored further nor voted on at Town Meengs. cizens, local governing bodies, and local and regional organizaons demonstrang substanal These findings of suitability are based on: support for designaon under the Wild and  Analysis of exisng local, state, federal and non‐ Scenic Rivers Act based on the Partnership Wild regulatory protecons applicable to the upper and Scenic Rivers model.

Figure 21: Map of the segments proposed for designaon (in blue/dark). Yellow/light segments are not both eligible and suitable for designaon at this me.

Page 65

Page 66

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Manahan

Mike

Photo The purpose of this Chapter is to present the Environment Assessment for designaon of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers including the possible Alternaves for designaon, and the preferred Alternave B.

Introducon To be eligible, the river must be free‐flowing and possess at least one “outstandingly remarkable” The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90‐542, resource value, such as exceponal recreaonal, as amended), enacted in 1968, established a geologic, fish and wildlife, or historic features. The framework for protecon of select rivers, for the resource values must be directly related to, or benefit of present and future generaons. dependent upon the river. The determinaon of a Congress declared that “the established naonal resource’s significance is based on the professional policy of dam and other construcon… needs to be judgment of the Study Team. complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers, or secons thereof, in their The suitability determinaon for a Wild and Scenic free‐flowing condion to protect the water quality River designaon is based upon several findings. of such rivers and to fulfill other vital naonal First, there must be evidence of lasng protecon conservaon purposes.” These selected rivers for the river’s free‐flowing character and collecvely form the Naonal Wild and Scenic outstanding resources, either through exisng Rivers System. Prior to a river’s addion to the mechanisms, or through a combinaon of exisng Naonal Wild and Scenic River System, it must be and new conservaon measures resulng from the found both eligible and suitable. Wild and Scenic Study. Second, there must be

Page 67

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

strong support for designaon from exisng enes Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Local leaders and including towns, the state, riverfront landowners, and voters in eight municipalies in the Study area and the conservaon organizaons that will provide long‐term State of Vermont have expressed a strong desire to protecon of the river. Third, a praccal management protect the rivers and their resources and are seeking framework must be devised that will allow these federal designaon in order to gain naonal interests to work together as effecve stewards of the recognion for their waterways and implement the river and its resources. Finally, Wild and Scenic River locally prepared, advisory Management Plan. designaon must fit as an appropriate and efficient river conservaon tool. The purpose of this EA is to enable the Naonal Park Service and its partners to: As a result of the studies conducted by the Study  Determine if the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Commiee in partnership with the Naonal Park should be proposed for addion to the Naonal Service (NPS), the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and have been determined to be both eligible and suitable  Determine the best long‐term conservaon for designaon into the Naonal Wild and Scenic strategies for protecng and enhancing the Rivers Rivers System. In accordance with the Naonal and associated resources. Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulaons (40 CFR 1500‐ The upper Missisquoi River and Trout River corridors 1508), and NPS Directors order #12, an Environmental contain important “outstandingly remarkable” Assessment (EA) was conducted as part of the Upper resource values related to the scenic and recreaonal Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Study Report. This EA opportunies; the natural resources including addresses the proposed acon of designaon of the disncve species and habitats, geology and water upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers as components of quality; and the historic and cultural landscape. the Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The EA is Despite the fact that the exisng framework of local comprised of secons that describe the Purpose and and state resource protecon was deemed adequate Need for Acon, Alternaves, the River Environment, through the Wild and Scenic Study, it is important to the Impacts of Alternaves, and the Public ensure opmal protecon of Outstandingly Involvement Process. Remarkable Values (ORVs), water quality, and free‐ flowing character over me from threats and a Project Descripon changing environment. The proposed Partnership Wild and Scenic River approach to designaon and the The proposed project provides for permanent Management Plan (locally developed during the Study) protecon from federally permied or funded water is tailored to rivers like the upper Missisquoi and Trout resource projects through a Wild and Scenic River Rivers that are characterized by extensive private land designaon of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers ownership along the river, and well‐established and their important river‐related resources. No river tradions of local control of river management in a construcon projects or improvements that may community based seng. This designaon scenario is impact the river environment are being considered as designed to support the development of river part of this project. protecon strategies that bring communies together in protecng, enhancing, and managing high value Purpose and Need for Acon river resources. Implementaon of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan is The purpose of designaon under the Wild and Scenic intended to be pursued in a coordinated approach Rivers Act is to protect and enhance the upper between all levels of government as well as with Missisquoi and Trout Rivers and their values, including residents and local and regional partners and their free‐flowing character, water quality, and organizaons. The purpose of the designaon, as

Page 68

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

determined by the Wild and Scenic Study Commiee those which are river related (including covered in partnership with the Naonal Park Service, is to bridges) protect the river resources through local implementaon of the Management Plan’s protecon Addionally, threats and management issues were goals as follows: idenfied that could degrade Outstandingly  To protect, preserve and enhance the abundant Remarkable Resource quality. The gaps between scenic and recreaonal opportunies in the area potenal threats and exisng protecons were noted, that relate to the river and its enjoyment by the and recommended tools or techniques provided for public. To support the maintenance of adequate improving protecon and enhancement of the access opportunies to the river that allow for resources at the local level. appropriate river uses while protecng the water quality, integrity of the riparian areas, and the Alternaves surrounding environment of the river  Promote the protecon of the significant geologic During the Wild and Scenic Study the Commiee features in the Missisquoi and Trout watersheds for considered a variety of alternaves for the long‐term their importance as educaonal, historical, and protecon of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers recreaonal resources as well as significance as and associated resources. In accordance with NEPA, habitat including for rare, threatened and CEQ regulaons, the desires of the Study area towns, endangered species and established NPS policy for Wild and Scenic Studies  Promote the preservaon and conservaon of of extensive private land ownership along rivers, prime agricultural soils to support working farms in alternaves for the conservaon of river resources are the Study area described here. Alternaves were considered and  Support the survey and best management of rare, evaluated in accordance with the interests and threatened and endangered species and their objecves of the riverfront communies as arculated habitats and promote biological diversity in these through the Study Commiee. In order for an watersheds alternave to meet the needs of the towns in  Educate communies about the locaon and protecng the river the following objecves must be importance of significant ecological areas and met: crical wildlife habitat such as deer yards and vernal  Federal designaon would only be recommended if pools strong support were expressed through passage of  Priorize the reducon of sediment and phosphorus support resoluons by the affected towns inputs to the Missisquoi River. Assist towns and  No reliance on federal ownership of land in order to landowners in the implementaon of programs to achieve the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act’s goals of preserve and protect water quality in the study protecng and enhancing river values area, the lower Missisquoi River, and Lake  Land use management is regulated through exisng Champlain local and state authories, the same as before a  Idenfy, understand, maintain, and as needed designaon improve the chemical, physical, biological, and flow  Administraon and implementaon of a locally led condions in the waters of the upper Missisquoi and Management Plan is accomplished through a Trout Rivers so that they support the needs of broadly parcipatory management commiee, nave wildlife, aquac life, and recreaonal users convened for each river specifically for this purpose  To preserve the historical and cultural heritage of  Responsibility for managing and protecng river the upper Missisquoi and Trout River valleys by resources is shared among the local, state, federal, supporng efforts that maintain and restore and non‐governmental partners on the commiee prehistoric and historic sites and areas of cultural  A strong emphasis is placed on grassroots significance in the Study area towns, with a focus on involvement and consensus building

Page 69

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

 Reliance on volunteerism is a key to success Alternave B. Full Designaon‐NPS Preferred  No Naonal Park is established, nor are Naonal Park Service (NPS) Superintendent, law This alternave would designate all segments of the enforcement, or similar elements of tradional upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers having been found federally managed units of the Naonal Park System to meet the criteria of eligibility and suitability into the established Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This alternave designates the 35.1 miles of the upper In accordance with NPS Director’s Order #12 and NEPA Missisquoi and 11.0 miles of the Trout River currently Secon 102(2) (E), a range of proposed river both eligible and suitable for designaon as protecon alternaves were considered, including a components of the Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers “no acon” alternave. Addionally and in System. Alternave B best protects the resources of accordance with the DO‐12 Handbook, the NPS the rivers by designang the segments as described. idenfies the environmentally preferable alternave in Designaon would include the upper Missisquoi River, its NEPA documents for public review and comment from the Wesield/Lowell Town Line to the Canadian [Sect. 4.5 E(9)]. The environmentally preferable Border in North Troy, with the excepon of two river alternave is the alternave that causes the least segments in Troy and North Troy that include dams. It damage to the biological and physical environment would include designaon of the upper Missisquoi and best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, from the Canadian Border in Richford to the project cultural, and natural resources. The environmentally boundary of the Enosburg Falls dam in Enosburgh. preferable alternave is idenfied upon consideraon Designaon would also include the enre Trout River and weighing by the Responsible Official of long‐term from the confluence of Jay and Wade Brook in environmental impacts against short‐term impacts in Montgomery to where it meets the Missisquoi River in evaluang what is the best protecon of these East Berkshire. The future Upper Missisquoi and Trout resources. In some situaons, such as when different Rivers Wild and Scenic Commiee (Commiee) would alternaves impact different resources to different assume lead responsibility for coordinaon of the degrees, there may be more than one environmentally Management Plan implementaon that was created preferable alternave (43 CFR 46.30). during the Study. To undertake this responsibility, the Commiee would coordinate and direct Alternave A. No Acon implementaon of acvies described in the Management Plan. The Management Plan as The No Acon alternave is evaluated and used as a implemented by the Commiee would provide an baseline for comparison with the effects of the acon appropriate and effecve management framework for alternaves. This alternave does not involve the long‐term management and protecon of the designaon of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers watercourses. to the Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This alternave would maintain exisng state and local The NPS would have a role on the Commiee and controls for resource protecon on the upper could potenally provide financial and technical Missisquoi and Trout Rivers without addional federal assistance to support Management Plan protecon from federal water resource projects or implementaon. The NPS would provide Wild and federal support for local river protecon efforts. Scenic Rivers Act Secon 7 reviews of federally Under the No Acon alternave, there would be no permied or funded projects which might potenally involvement or support in river management from the impact the waterways and associated resources. Naonal Park Service through administraon of the Addionally, the funcons of the NPS could include, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. but not be limited to the following acvies:

Page 70

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

 Provide limited ﬁnancial assistance to support the coordinaon of river conservaon projects amongst towns and partners  Respond to public inquiries  Develop appropriate plans to protect resources and develop visitor and interpreve resources  Fund addional research iniaves for resource protecon and public use  Provide technical and ﬁnancial assistance, as appropriate, through use of cooperave agreements  Assist in public educaon  Develop interpreve media

Figure 22. Map showing Alternave B ‐ NPS and Environmentally Preferred Alternave designang all currently eligible and suitable segments of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers.

Page 71

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Features Common to the No Acon and Full Service (NPS) and would be managed directly by NPS Designaon Alternaves staﬀ. The Wild and Scenic Commiee, as described above, would be created, but the NPS would take a more acve role, using the Commiee and 1. Connued implementaon of exisng local, state, Management Plan for guidance. With this type of and federal programs documented in the Upper management direcon, the NPS would be responsible Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan: Wild for assuring protecon in a tradionally managed unit and Scenic River designaon would not replace or of the Naonal Park System such as through potenal appreciably alter the exisng implementaon of the NPS law enforcement or land management or “baseline” local, state or federal programs as acquision. This method of management was discussed in the Management Plan, and which eliminated from consideraon prior to the comprise the basis of the “No Acon” Alternave. authorizaon of the Wild and Scenic Study Bill. Thus, connued implementaon of these programs is Several New England rivers hold a partnership Wild assumed under all alternaves. and Scenic River designaon which serve as a

successful model of the coordinated approach to river 2. Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management management which does not involve federal land Plan: The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers acquision or the direct federal management Management Plan has been developed during the presence of more tradional park units. The Study to serve as the blueprint for management and “Partnership” approach was deemed best suited to protecon of the rivers regardless of whether Wild the upper Missisquoi River and Trout River area by the and Scenic Rivers designaon occurs. If designaon pre‐study team. Local support for designaon was occurs there is a greater likelihood that the based on the expectaon that river management Management Plan will be implemented to its full would be accomplished through the Partnership potenal; without a designaon there is no guarantee method, not solely by the NPS. that a group of stakeholders will convene to oversee

implementaon of the Management Plan and the NPS will not be involved. The principal effect or impact of 2. State Management: Federal Wild and Scenic Wild and Scenic Rivers designaon will be to add the designaon by the Secretary of the Interior under specific protecons of designaon on top of exisng Secon 2(a) (ii) of the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers programs, and to establish an authorizaon for direct Act would mean that the State of Vermont would federal funding and technical assistance to aid in serve as the manager for the upper Missisquoi and implementaon of the Management Plan. Trout Rivers. This management approach was eliminated from consideraon during the pre‐study 3. Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic authorizaon phase. Based on the high level of early Study: Since the watercourses are currently under a 5 local support and involvement in the process by (a) study, they are protected under Secon 7(b) of the riverfront towns and conservaon organizaons, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for three (3) full fiscal years need for state management was determined to be not aer the study report is submied to Congress. appropriate for this river designaon. The pre‐study team also determined that the “Partnership” model for the Wild and Scenic Study and designaon, which Alternaves Considered and Rejected Prior to the serves as a successful model of the coordinated Wild and Scenic Study approach to river management, was best suited to the upper Missisquoi River and Trout River area. 1. Naonal Park Service Management: Under this type of management scheme, the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers would be added to the Naonal Wild and Scenic River System as a unit of the Naonal Park

Page 72

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Idenﬁcaon of Environmentally Preferable  Protects the river from the harmful eﬀects of Alternave federally licensed or funded development projects

In accordance with the DO‐12 Handbook, the NPS Affected Environment idenfies the environmentally preferable alternave in its NEPA documents for public review and comment The Wild and Scenic Study included the approximately [Sect. 4.5 E(9)]. The environmentally preferable 25‐mile segment of the upper Missisquoi from its alternave is the alternave that causes the least headwaters in Lowell to the Canadian border in North damage to the biological and physical environment Troy, the approximately 25‐mile segment of the upper and best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, Missisquoi from the Canadian border in East Richford cultural, and natural resources. The environmentally to Enosburg Falls, the approximately 20‐mile segment preferable alternave is idenfied upon consideraon of the Trout River from its headwaters to its and weighing by the Responsible Official of long‐term confluence with the Missisquoi River, and the environmental impacts against short‐term impacts in tributaries of these Rivers. The area is described in evaluang what is the best protecon of these detail in Chapter 2 of this Report. resources. In some situaons, such as when different alternaves impact different resources to different In addion, NEPA asks federal agencies to analyze the degrees, there may be more than one environmentally likely environmental impacts of a proposed acon, in preferable alternave (43 CFR 46.30). this case designaon as a Naonal Wild and Scenic River. Wild and Scenic River designaon (and the Wild Alternave B most fully protects the free‐flowing river and Scenic Rivers Act) is specifically targeted toward character, water quality and Outstandingly the preservaon of free‐flowing river character, and Remarkable Values. Based on the analysis of protecon, and enhancement of idenfied environmental consequences of each alternave in “outstandingly remarkable” values. Therefore, the Secon 5.F., Alternave B is the environmentally “affected environment” for the NEPA analysis is free‐ preferable alternave. Under this alternave the flowing river character, water quality, and Federal Power Commission (FERC) shall not license the “outstandingly remarkable” natural, cultural and construcon of any dam or other project works. This recreaonal river values. These values have been full designaon alternave would provide special extensively described in the Outstandingly Remarkable recognion and protecon for the watercourses, and Values Chapter 3 of this Report. A fuller for the idenfied Outstandingly Remarkable Values understanding of the resources in queson, their (ORVs) for which the rivers would be designated. The exisng management and the likely impacts of Wild Preferred Alternave B is Naonal Wild and Scenic and Scenic designaon can also be gained from River designaon of all segments found eligible and reading the companion document to this Study suitable with a river management plan implemented Report, the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers through the local Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan. Wild and Scenic Commiee (comprised of local, state and federal partners). Impact of Alternaves

Environmentally Preferable Alternave B: This secon of the Environmental Assessment allows for comparisons of the alternaves and their impacts  Most fully protects the free‐ﬂowing river character, on the resources of the upper Missisquoi and Trout water quality and Outstandingly Remarkable Values Rivers. It is not ancipated that any part of the natural  Allows designaon of all currently eligible and environment of the waterways will be adversely or suitable river segments negavely impacted by the designaon of the river into the Naonal Wild and Scenic River System or via

Page 73

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

the adopon of the Management Plan. No river construcon projects or improvements that may impact the river environment are being considered as part of this planning process.

The impacts of the alternaves are esmated based on professional experience related to similar designaons in the northeast region ulizing the “Partnership Wild and Scenic River” designaon model. Such a designaon has been in eﬀect on twelve similar rivers in the larger Northeast Region of the Naonal Park Service which collecvely provide a sound basis for understanding the impacts of designaon.

Page 74

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Impact of Alternaves ‐ Tables

Table 6. Descripon of each alternave.

Alternave A: No Acon Alternave B: Full Designaon ‐ NPS and Descripon of Alternave Environmentally Preferable Alternave Descripon of Alternave

This alternave would maintain exisng state and local This alternave would designate, as a component of the controls for resource protecon on the upper Missisquoi Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System, all segments of the and Trout Rivers without addional federal protecon from upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers found to meet the federal water resource projects or federal support for local criteria of eligibility and suitability, totaling 46.1 miles. The river protecon efforts. upper Missisquoi River, from the Wesield/Lowell Town Line to the Canadian Border in North Troy, with the Under this alternave, no poron of the upper Missisquoi excepon of two river segments in Troy and North Troy that River or Trout River would be designated as a component of include dams; the upper Missisquoi from the Canadian the Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The exisng Border in Richford to the project boundary of the Enosburg local, state, and federal river management and protecon Falls dam in Enosburgh; and the enre Trout River from the context would be unchanged. The Upper Missisquoi and confluence of Jay and Wade Brook in Montgomery to where Trout Rivers Management Plan, prepared as part of the it meets the Missisquoi River in East Berkshire would be Study, could be ulized by exisng river stakeholders to subject to the addional protecons of the federal guide and improve future river management and protecon designaon. If designated, the Naonal Park Service would efforts; however, the absence of the federal designaon convene an Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and and ancipated federal support for the Plan and its Scenic Commiee, ensuring that this oversight and implementaon would likely mean that the Plan and its coordinaon body exists and funcons to smulate implementaon would be ulized to a much lesser extent implementaon of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers than if designaon were to occur. Long‐term federal Management Plan. Federal funding and technical assistance support and assistance to protecon of free‐flowing river (subject to Congressional appropriaons) would be available condions, water quality, and ORVs would not be in place. to assist in Plan implementaon and would movate Similarly, it is possible that some other enty (the Naonal increased long‐term efforts to protect and enhance free‐ Park Service would not be involved if the river is not flowing river condions, water quality and idenfied ORVs. designated) might organize, convene and support a Secon 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would be in commiee charged with overseeing implementaon of the effect for all eligible and suitable segments, providing Management Plan. The likelihood is, however, that the maximum protecon to the free‐flowing river character commiee will not be a significant long‐term factor in the from potenally adverse federally assisted water resource absence of federal designaon and support. In the absence development project. This alternave best matches the of designaon, federally assisted water resource desires of the communies, local governments and river development projects, such as hydroelectric projects, could stakeholders. be developed at exisng dam sites or at new sites.

Page 75

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Table 7. Impacts on Free‐Flowing Character

Alternave A: No Acon Alternave B: Full Designaon Impacts on Free‐Flowing Character Impacts on Free‐Flowing Character

This alternave would provide no addional protecon This alternave would permanently protect 46.1 miles of (beyond exisng State and federal project review and the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers from federally perming programs) to the free‐flowing character of the assisted or permied projects that could alter the free‐flow upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. Federally permied or of the river, and would specifically prohibit the FERC from funded water resource projects that could alter the free‐ licensing any new hydroelectric project on or directly flow of the river and its undisturbed shoreline areas would affecng the designated segments. The exclusion of the only connue to be subject to Secon 7(b) review for three upper Missisquoi River areas surrounding the Enosburg full fiscal years aer this Study Report is submied to Falls, North Troy and Troy dams would allow connued Congress. Since most, and perhaps all, projects posing a hydropower at the exisng dams. threat to free‐flowing condion require federal assistance/ perming, this lack of future protecon could be significant This alternave would provide the maximum protecon to over me. New or former and historical dam sites on the free‐flowing character from other forms of federally/ upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers could aract potenal assisted water resource development projects such as rip‐ hydroelectric proposals, though no such proposals have rap, channel modificaons, diversions. Over me, this surfaced as part of the Study invesgaons. The feasibility addional protecon and project scruny could have the of any such proposals is highly speculave and influenced by effect of beer preserving and/or enhancing free‐flowing such factors as energy prices, government renewable river character and natural stream channel condions. energy incenves, the larger state and federal regulatory climate, and other factors. Beyond hydroelectric development, this alternave would provide no addional review or scruny of Army Corps permits or other federal assistance projects related to the Rivers. Over me the absence of this addional scruny and regulatory protecon could allow for degradaon of free‐flowing character through rip‐rap, channel alteraons, or similar projects. Any such degradaon would be expected to be long‐term and incremental in nature.

Page 76

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Table 8. Impacts on Protecon of Idenﬁed Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs).

Alternave A: No Acon Alternave B: Full Designaon Impacts on Protecon of Idenﬁed Outstandingly Impacts on Protecon of Idenﬁed Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) Remarkable Values (ORVs)

Under the No Acon Alternave A there would be no Alternave B would provide the highest degree of increased protecon of the idenfied natural, cultural and protecon to the idenfied ORVs and would permanently recreaonal Outstandingly Remarkable Values, or water protect the ORVs of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers quality. The current level of protecon through local, state from federally permied/funded water resource and federal channels would remain unchanged and without development projects that would have a potenal direct or the Wild and Scenic designaon’s protecons, could lead to adverse effect. FERC licensed projects on or directly incremental decline in the ORVs over me. The increased impacng designated river segments would be prohibited, scruny afforded by the direct applicaon of Secon 7(a) of and as a result the ORVs of the upper Missisquoi and Trout the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would not be in effect for the Rivers would be permanently protected from the potenal oversight of federally funded or assisted projects beyond impacts of new projects. In addion, the NEPA review the three‐year post‐study report submission deadline. In processes for federally funded/assisted, non‐water resource addion, the increased examinaon of other federal projects would necessitate weighing impacts on the projects (non‐water resource development projects) that idenfied ORVs. The Naonal Park Service would comment could be expected through required NEPA processes would through exisng federal agency review processes to ensure not include recognion and protecon of federal Wild and this consideraon. The Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Scenic River status. Similarly, the probable lack of oversight Wild and Scenic Commiee could take the lead and and project assessment applied to nonfederal projects, responsibility for following guidance provided in the through Wild and Scenic Commiee support, would erode Management Plan and could undertake desirable steps and local and state efforts to protect idenfied natural, cultural, acons needed to protect the idenfied ORVs and provide and recreaonal values. Without Wild and Scenic Rivers opportunies for resource protecon and enhancement. designaon, resource protecon strategies set forth within This “Partnership” management framework has proven the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Management Plan to effecve on other Wild and Scenic Rivers and in the promote protecon and enhancement of ORVs would not Northeast Region. be implemented to the same extent since there would be no Wild and Scenic Commiee to lead the effort. Furthermore the Naonal Park Service would not be available to provide technical assistance, further leading to a potenal long‐term deterioraon of idenfied resources.

Page 77

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Table 9. Impacts on Socio‐Economic Values.

Alternave A: No Acon Alternave B: Full Designaon Impacts on Socio‐Economic Values Impacts on Socio‐Economic Values

Under Alternave A, long‐term impacts to socio‐economic Alternave B would maximize the protecon of natural, values could be ancipated relave to non‐designaon cultural, and recreaonal resource values of a Wild and scenarios. For instance, there would be no designaon‐ Scenic designaon in the form of river‐focused, community‐ related special recognion of the upper Missisquoi and based values, consistent with wide support expressed by Trout Rivers and their associated resources. In addion, local municipalies. Over me it would be reasonable to resource related protecon that a designaon offers would expect that quality of life values, home prices, tourism, and not be available through consistent long‐term similar socio‐economic standards might be preserved or implementaon of the Management Plan, or through increased through such efforts. High quality, protected river reviews conducted under Secon 7 of the Wild and Scenic resources have been shown in numerous studies to have Rivers Act likely resulng in some level of degradaon of the such posive economic community benefits. Landowners free‐flowing condions, ORVs and water quality of the along the watercourses may be more likely to adopt Rivers. Over the long‐term, small, incremental, detrimental voluntary protecon strategies due to the pride associated changes could affect local quality of life. Indicators of with a designaon. There would be increased incenve for quality of life related to the river can include home prices, river communies to work cooperavely on river resource sense of place, and availability of high quality waters for issues to benefit all. An increase in volunteer service could human needs and recreaonal uses, as well as other related also result from the designaon. Under this alternave, natural values. The proacve protecon and enhancement FERC licensed water resource projects are not permied in strategies of the Management Plan aimed at maximizing the the designated segments, and other federally funded/ natural, cultural and recreaonal values to the abung assisted water resource projects could be restricted. communies would see less implementaon, thus reducing, Alternave B allows for exploraon for connued use or over me, the value of these resources to the community. redevelopment of hydroelectric power facilies in Enosburg With widespread local support for designang the upper Falls, North Troy and Troy. At this me strong community Missisquoi and Trout Rivers as Wild and Scenic Rivers, it is support exists for designaon and protecon of river ancipated that the river communies would be dissasfied related resources. with a non‐designaon result. River communies and stakeholders would not have access to the opportunies and associated presge the designaon affords, and that communies along designated rivers gain access to aer designaon.

Alternave A could result in hydroelectric proposals on new or former and historical dam sites on the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, though no such proposals have surfaced as part of the Study invesgaons. The feasibility of any such proposals is highly speculave and inﬂuenced by such factors as energy prices, government renewable energy incenves, the larger state and federal regulatory climate, and other factors.

Page 78

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Table 10. Ancipated cost of each alternave.

Alternave A: No Acon Alternave B: Full Designaon Ancipated Costs Ancipated Costs

There are no direct costs associated with this alternave. Direct costs of this alternave to the federal government Over the long term, however, there could be substanal may be ancipated to be comparable to the direct costs of similar designaons in the NPS Northeast Region that indirect costs if important river values, including water provides seed funding for implementaon of the quality and idenﬁed Outstandingly Remarkable Values, are Management Plan. In recent years, annual congressional allowed to deteriorate. appropriaons through the Naonal Park Service operang budget approximated $175,000 for each of the twelve designated “Partnership Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers.” Some direct and indirect costs may also accrue to State agencies and non‐governmental organizaons partnering with the NPS through the Wild and Scenic Commiee if they choose to devote increased resources as compared to the No Acon alternave. Municipal involvement is expected to be all‐volunteer, while indirect costs may be accrued through projects willingly undertaken in partnership with the NPS and Wild and Scenic Commiee. Indirect costs through increased aenon to preservaon of river values may also occur. There would also be shared resources and funding across municipal borders for the beneﬁt of the rivers’ protecon. Mulple opportunies for collaboraon and pooling of resources with the upper Missisquoi and

Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Commiee would provide economy in scale. There would also be opportunies for the Commiee, municipalies and local organizaons to leverage addional funding as a result of the seed funding

provided by the Naonal Park Service.

Under this alternave, FERC licensed water resource projects are not permied within the designated area, and other federally funded/assisted water resource projects could be restricted. Full designaon results in a loss of the potenal future development of hydroelectric projects in the designated segments of the Rivers (there are no proposals known at this me). It is feasible that in the future the local energy needs or economic condions could shi and that appropriate technology for hydropower could be desirable. Alternave B allows for exploraon for connued use or redevelopment of hydroelectric power

facilies in Enosburg Falls, North Troy and Troy. At this me strong community support exists for designaon and protecon of river related resources.

Page 79

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Impact of Alternaves ‐ Discussion alternave are known, other than a slight savings in ﬁnancial expenditures and human capital devoted to Alternave A: No Acon the rivers and their protecon. These savings would likely be more than oﬀset by resource value losses and

the leveraging of volunteer support and funds through Alternave A fails to support protecon and alternate sources that bring addional value to the enhancement of the natural, cultural, and recreaonal designaon. Without the designaon there would be Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of the upper no increase in visibility and presge that a Wild and Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. This alternave would Scenic designaon affords. allow for the possibility of a slow loss of these values, contrary to the strongly expressed desires of adjacent There are no direct costs associated with this communies and other river stakeholders alternave. Over the long‐term, however, there could demonstrated during the Wild and Scenic Study. be substanal indirect costs if important river values, Twenty years of accumulated experience on other including water quality and idenfied Outstandingly Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers has demonstrated Remarkable Values, are allowed to deteriorate. that each such river annually accomplishes many projects through the Wild and Scenic River Alternave B: Full Designaon Commiees and with the assistance of NPS staff and

Congressional appropriaons aimed at protecng and enhancing idenfied river ORVs. Absent these Wild Alternave B is both the environmentally preferable and Scenic Commiee led efforts to implement acon alternave and the NPS preferred alternave. It is the programs, it is reasonable to assume a corresponding most protecve of the rivers’ free‐flowing character, deterioraon (or lack of enhancement) would be water quality, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values observed over the long‐term. Quality of life values of the designaon alternaves considered. This opon may decline under this alternave and there would be best reflects the desires of the Upper Missisquoi and less incenve and cooperave management structure Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Commiee, local for recognizing and protecng the special river values. communies and majority of river stakeholders. In parcular it is the alternave supported by the eight This alternave does not provide protecon of free‐ municipalies in the Study area which voted at their flowing river condions, as provided by Secon 7 of March 2013 Town Meengs to support designaon the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that would prohibit under the Management Plan. The designaon would FERC licensed water resource development projects, also acknowledge the widespread support expressed and provide the ability for the NPS to review federally by the State of Vermont, river towns and stakeholders. funded/assisted water resource projects. Other than Strong support for long‐term protecon of the upper those three which would be excluded from Missisquoi and Trout Rivers resources through a designaon due to their lack of suitability and Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers’ designaon was eligibility, there are no other known dam sites on the clearly indicated through town votes and leers of upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers that have the support. capability of generang a large enough amount of power to make development feasible at this me, Under this alternave all currently eligible and suitable though condions could change in the future that segments of the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers provide increased incenve to dam the upper would be designated. The exclusion of the segments Missisquoi and Trout Rivers and damage free‐flowing of the river surrounding and including the Enosburg condions. Falls, North Troy and Troy Dams would permit hydropower connuaon or redevelopment of the No corresponding advantages to the No Acon exisng dams. This Alternave is designed to protect the exisng hydroelectric operaons by excluding the

Page 80

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

dams, their associated properes, facilies, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values. There would also project areas from the designated area. Secon 7 of be shared resources and funding across town borders the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not preclude FERC for the benefit of greater river protecon. Wild and licensing of a water resource project so long as the Scenic designaon would provide opportunies to project does not invade the designated area or coordinate projects and funding through the Wild and unreasonably diminish the fish, wildlife, scenic or Scenic Commiee, towns, and local organizaons, and recreaonal values within this area that were present to leverage addional funding as a result of the small as of its designaon. amount of seed funding provided by the NPS. The river towns would realize an increase in presge and This full designaon alternave would provide special visibility due to the designaon. This increase may recognion and protecon for the watercourses, and have a posive local economic impact. The for the idenfied Outstandingly Remarkable Values communies have acknowledged the benefit of a (ORVs) for which the rivers would be designated. The funding source for river‐related conservaon work ORVs were idenfied and documented by a team of that is crical to protecng and enhancing local experts as part of the Study process and were resources and quality of life. determined to be unique, rare or exemplary features on a regional and/or naonal scale (the Eligibility During the Wild and Scenic Study, the Study Chapter of this report provides an overview of the Commiee idenfied resources that are highly valued ORVs and the Management Plan which serves as a by residents, businesses and recreaonal users who companion document to this Study Report details the strongly support a Wild and Scenic River designaon as ORVs in depth). a way to further river protecon. Residents strongly support the diverse recreaonal opportunies that the Direct costs of this alternave to the federal watercourses offer. government may be ancipated to be comparable to the direct costs of similar designaons in the Naonal Cumulave Impacts Park Service (NPS) Northeast Region. In recent years, annual congressional appropriaons through the The main purpose of designaon can, in many ways, Naonal Park Service operang budget approximated be seen as a way to preserve the exisng condion of $175,000 for each of twelve designated “Partnership river‐related resources (i.e. to prevent degradaon of Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers.” Some direct and resources), as well as to protect the waterways from indirect costs may also accrue to State agencies and the cumulave impacts of acvies in and adjacent to non‐governmental organizaons partnering with the the rivers. For the most part, local and State NPS through the Wild and Scenic Commiee, if they regulatory measures are currently in place that protect decide to devote more resources toward the upper the resources. The principal effect and impact of Wild Missisquoi and Trout Rivers than they would with the and Scenic River designaon is to add specific Wild and No Acon Alternave A. Municipal involvement is Scenic River protecons and federal funding/ expected to be all‐volunteer, while indirect costs may assistance opportunies onto the exisng framework be accrued through projects undertaken in partnership of local, state and federal river management and with the NPS and Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers protecon. These protecons are ghtly aimed at Wild and Scenic Commiee. Indirect costs through protecng and enhancing a river’s free‐flowing increased aenon to preservaon of river values may character, water quality, and idenfied “outstandingly also occur when partners decide to parcipate; remarkable” natural, cultural and recreaonal however, significant, long‐term savings would be resource values. In addion, Secon 7 of the Act gained with this alternave by prevenng costs indeed has the stated purpose of prevenng federal associated with loss or deterioraon of important river assistance to water resource development projects values, including water quality and idenfied that would have a “direct and adverse impact” to free‐

Page 81

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

flow, water quality and idenfied ORVs. Under Whether the impact being considered is that of Alternave B (full designaon), Secon 7 protecons increased scruny to federal permits such as those of would be in place for all eligible and suitable the Army Corps of Engineers or the impacts of federal segments, providing permanent and maximum financial and technical assistance, virtually all impacts protecon to the free‐flowing character from are of a long‐term and incremental nature, with the potenally adverse federally assisted water resource predominant effect of designaon being preservaon development projects. of exisng condions. The only excepon to this general rule is the case of major federally assisted Under Alternave A, the absence of a Wild and Scenic water resource development projects, parcularly designaon enrely, federally funded or permied FERC licensed hydroelectric facilies that would be projects could have a significant adverse impact on precluded by designaon. In this case, there can be a river resources over me. Hydroelectric projects could dramac impact of designaon. For this reason, much be expanded or developed under this scenario that of the aenon in the comparison of alternaves is could result in degradaon of free‐flowing character devoted to this potenal impact, and the manner in or loss of resources that are described in detail within which the different alternaves would potenally this report. A new dam site could present a barrier to affect future hydroelectric development on the upper fish passage/migraon, and to recreaonal uses and Missisquoi and Trout Rivers. could impact water quality. This No Acon Alternave A would provide no addional review or scruny of Public Involvement, Consultaons and Coordinaon Army Corps permits or other federal assistance projects related to the river. Over me the absence of Introducon this addional scruny and regulatory protecon could allow for degradaon of free‐flowing character This secon documents the consultaon and through rip‐rap, channel alteraons, or similar coordinaon procedures with federal, state and local projects. Any such degradaon would be expected to agencies, governing bodies and the public outreach be long‐term and incremental in nature. The full and educaon process employed during the Wild and designaon Alternave B provides the maximum Scenic Study. Refer to Appendix 4 for examples of protecon to free‐flowing character from other forms outreach and educaon materials ulized during the of federally/assisted water resource development Study. projects. Over me, this addional protecon and project scruny could have the effect of beer A high level of consultaon and coordinaon occurred preserving and/or enhancing free‐flowing river during the Wild and Scenic Study and resulted in the character and natural channel condions. successful involvement of the public, local communies, the State of Vermont, federal agencies Documentaon of baseline condions as a part of the and resource experts in the Study Process and in the Wild and Scenic Study provides the starng point from endorsement of designaon by voters in municipalies which future change can be measured. While in the Study area. Given that the “Partnership Wild opportunies to enhance resources are certainly and Scenic Rivers” approach was employed in idenfied as a part of the designaon’s and conducng this Study, there was an emphasis on a Management Plan’s objecves, such opportunies are local, collaborave process. The locally appointed incremental in nature, with no dramac change Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Study Commiee ancipated immediately as a result of designaon. made up of local, Select‐board appointed Over the long‐term, small incremental posive representaves and river stakeholders, with support changes could have the effect of added protecon and from the NPS, led the effort to engage the public in enhancement of the rivers’ free‐flowing character, every aspect of the Study. Of central importance was water quality and resources. the local development of the Management Plan that

Page 82

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

offers recommendaons for protecon and Environmental Assessment will be furnished to the enhancement of the Outstandingly Remarkable head of any affected Federal department or agency for Values. This planning process included widespread recommendaons or comments for a ninety‐day opportunity for input, comment, and review. review period. Comments will also be received on‐line through the NPS Planning, Environment and Public The upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Comment (PEPC) website: Study Bill H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land hp://parkplanning.nps.gov/ Management Act of 2009, was signed into law on March 30, 2009 by President Obama as Public Law 111 In addion to the review of the dra Study Report and ‐11. In December 2009 a locally appointed Study Environmental Assessment during the Wild and Scenic Commiee began parcipang in earnest in the Wild Study, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was and Scenic Study process with support from and in called upon to provide experse regarding review of consultaon with Naonal Park Service Staff (a list of the Troy Hydroelectric Project which was undergoing Study Commiee members may be found at the licensing review during the period of the Study. beginning of this Report). Secon 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires all federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to ensure A great deal of me and care was taken over the that any acon authorized, funded, or carried out by a course of the intensive four‐year Wild and Scenic federal agency does not jeopardize the connued Rivers Study to ensure that adequate communicaon existence of listed species or crical habitat (data on occurred and that there was ample me for comments state and federal endangered species is collected and input from all interested agencies, governmental through the Vermont Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife enes, non‐governmental and local organizaons, Diversity Program—formerly Nongame & Natural and the public. Consultaons with resource experts Heritage Program). U.S.D.A. Natural Resource and ensuing research results contributed to the body Conservaon Service representaves aended several of knowledge required to determine the river’s Study Commiee meengs, and provided experse on eligibility for designaon. Numerous types of the NRCS farm related programs along the Missisquoi communicaon techniques were ulized to extend and Trout Rivers. Missisquoi Naonal Wildlife Refuge and share informaon about the possible designaon, representaves were kept apprised of Study progress, results of research, and Study findings. Successful and coordinated with as a part of the Study. development of the Management Plan included providing opportunies for frequent input and Tribal extensive stakeholder review of the Management The Wild and Scenic Study did not idenfy the Plan. existence of any federally recognized tribes or tribal lands impacted by this Study and no tribal Though there are no other designated rivers in representaves were required to parcipate in the Vermont, the Lower Farmington and Salmon Brook Study process. Abenaki representaves were invited Study and other Partnership River designaons in the to parcipate; however, none did. Northeast Region provided many resources and examples for local educaon regarding the value of a Copies of the Study Report will be made available to successfully implemented designaon in New England. tribal representaves within Vermont who request a copy. Consultaons State Federal Vermont Department of Environmental Conservaon As outlined in Secon 4(b) of the Wild and Scenic (Vermont Agency of Natural resources) Rivers Act, copies of this Study Report and wholeheartedly supports the Upper Missisquoi and

Page 83

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Trout Rivers Study Commiee’s efforts to proceed access many different audiences. The NPS cooperave with seeking Congressional authorizaon for agreement with the Missisquoi River Basin Associaon designang defined segments of the upper Missisquoi provided the local mechanism for using appropriated and Trout Rivers as Wild and Scenic Rivers. NPS funding to support the Study Commiee’s public Department support for Wild and Scenic designaon is outreach and educaon efforts and to conduct for segments endorsed by town voter approval during cooperave research. An important element of the town meeng day in early March 2013. study approach was to involve the interested public to the greatest extent possible through an intensive The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources’ (ANR) educaon campaign. The wide‐reaching plan for Department of Environmental Conservaon (DEC) was educaon carried through in a series of meengs, an acve parcipant and cooperator throughout and presentaons, open houses, workshops, booths at was extensively consulted on all aspects of the Wild events, newsleers, posters, news arcles, and and Scenic Study via three staff persons that served as mailings. Public input was sought throughout the Study Commiee representaves. The VT DEC Study and in parcular at key junctures in the process. parcipated in the preparaon and review of the Major outreach and educaon efforts included: Management Plan and provided data and input on the  Three Newsleers covering the Outstandingly Outstandingly Remarkable Resources including water Remarkable Values, topics of interest, Commiee quality and biodiversity. Other consultaons with the member stories, and updates on the Wild and VT DEC related to the collecon of detailed Scenic Study process were mailed, emailed, and informaon regarding dam inventories of the Study distributed by locally during the study period. area rivers, river dynamics, and fish diversity and Newsleers and informaonal postcards were passage issues. distributed to town libraries, local stores, riverfront

landowners, and other locaons Consultaons with the State Division of Historic  An Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers website was Preservaon and research in its archives revealed developed early on in the Study process. Along with detailed documentaon of the existence of cultural many important documents displayed, the resources (archaeological resources and Naonal Management Plan was posted to encourage formal Register listed resources). public comment and review

 Numerous meengs were held in all ten towns Due to the importance of the working landscape and throughout the Study process. The purpose was to prevalence of agricultural lands along the upper educate residents, landowners, and local Missisquoi and Trout Rivers, the Vermont Agency of government representaves about the process, to Agriculture, Food and Markets was also represented gather public comments, and to inform on the Study Commiee and consulted during the Selectboards, municipal commissions (such as Study process and Management Plan dras. planning and zoning or conservaon commissions),

and the public on important study milestones. Public Involvement Depending on the individual municipality’s needs, Outreach and Educaon: The Study Commiee held meengs were held at a variety of points during the monthly public meengs for four years in part to Study including at the start of the Study, mid‐point support the process of facilitang local involvement in and towards the end. The meengs covered Wild the Study process and in the development of the and Scenic Rivers Act background and ongoing Management Plan that forms the basis of the potenal progress of the Study Commiee. The meengs designaon and may guide subsequent management. served to educate, gain input, and seek The Commiee’s role was also to assess local support recommendaons for the development of the for the designaon. A comprehensive outreach and Management Plan as well as to keep the public educaon campaign was developed and carried out to engaged in the Study and aware of its progress.

Page 84

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Educaon and Outreach materials may be found in shown on local TV staons, posted on Appendix 4 of this Report. website, shown at Community Open Houses  Community Open Houses in both Franklin and  The local TV news WPTZ interviewed Orleans County were widely publicized. Educaonal Commiee members. This program was materials on display included maps, research distributed and also aired on WPTZ prior to studies, Management Plan findings, and a video. the Town Meeng vote Representaves from the Study Commiee were  A PowerPoint slide show was developed. present to educate the public regarding proposed The presentaon was given at local ORVs, designaon boundaries, and management meengs priories for protecng the key resource values.  Posters and postcards with eye‐catching Solicing feedback for the Management Plan from designs and informaon were widely the public and educang voters prior to Town distributed Meeng votes were primary objecves of the open  Printed materials included contact and houses. website informaon as well as requests for  Mailings, press releases, signage, news arcles, and quesons, input, and comments a video were used to inform the public of the Wild  River paddles, work days and clean ups and Scenic Study. Leers announcing the were also hosted to educate local commencement of the Study and explaining the community members about Wild and Scenic goals and opportunies for parcipaon were sent designaon and collect informaon on to Town Selectboards. locally valued resources while providing  Postcards solicing ORV idenficaon, and enjoyable acvies on the rivers describing the Town Meeng arcle for vote were send to riverfront landowners. There were These educaon and outreach acvies were vital to numerous arcles in regional, local, and town developing the Management Plan through a broadly newspapers as well as in local organizaons’ and parcipatory process with guidance from locally‐based partners’ newsleers. representaves in consultaon with the Study area  A Wild and Scenic Study Booth was displayed at municipalies. Examples of educaon and outreach local events staffed by the Study Commiee materials are provided in Appendix 4 of this Report. representaves.  Addional meengs, presentaons, phone calls, and Selectboard Meengs: In addion to the regular email messages with town staff members and monthly Study Commiee meengs that were leaders, kept them up‐to‐date and facilitated publicized locally and open to the public, there were communicaons and collaboraon between boards updates conducted in all ten municipalies throughout and commissions and the Study Commiee. In the Study at Selectboard meengs, Conservaon addion, a subcommiee on outreach and Commission, and other meengs. The purpose was to educaon developed a comprehensive plan for educate residents about the process, to gather public engaging a broad spectrum of the public. comments, and to inform Selectboards, commissions,  Addional methods of communicaon that were and the public on important study milestones. The ulized included: meengs covered Wild and Scenic Rivers Act  A Library display was circulated to all ten background and ongoing progress of the Study Study area municipalies Commiee and served to educate, gain input, and  The Wild and Scenic Town Meeng vote seek recommendaons for the development of the was highlighted and the Study Coordinator Management Plan as well as to keep the public interviewed on VPR’s Radio Program engaged in the Study and aware of its progress. Small Vermont Edion group meengs were also held with town staff and  Video presentaon was developed and officials to share preliminary Study results and receive

Page 85

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

feedback. Preparers and Contributors

Generally there was an inial educaonal presentaon Shana Stewart Deeds, Upper Missisquoi and Trout to town leaders, boards, and commiees followed by Rivers Wild and Scenic Study Coordinator updates given by Study Commiee representaves at regular intervals and important milestones. All Naonal Park Service Northeast Region Study Team Selectboards were visited prior to Town Meeng vote Chuck Barscz, Division Chief as well. Jamie Fosburgh, New England Team Leader Jacki Katzmire, Regional Environmental Coordinator Presentaons to local organizaons, such as historical Jim MacCartney, River Manager sociees, the Northern Forest Canoe Trail or Missisquoi River Basin Associaon volunteers, and Naonal Park Service Advisors meengs with interested members of the public Carol Cook, WASO Office of Park Planning and Special afforded addional opportunies for the public to Studies parcipate in the review of the Management Plan. Cherri Espersen, WASO Office of Park Planning and The locally appointed town representaves to the Special Studies Study Commiee were responsible for remaining in Cassie Thomas, WASO Office of Park Planning and close communicaon with town staff, leaders, and Special Studies boards, and available to answer quesons from community members throughout the Study. The Local Study Commiee Study Coordinator was also available for technical Study Commiee Representaves from ten guidance and support. municipalies in the Study area, VT DEC/Agency of Natural Resources/Water Quality Division, Missisquoi Local Support for the Management Plan and Wild and River Basin Associaon, Vermont Agency of Scenic Designaon Agriculture, Food and Markets and the Northwest Regional Planning Commission. Though the Management Plan is advisory, it is crical that so many partners have had an acve role in Expert Advisors ‐ Outstandingly Remarkable Values developing its recommendaons, and in that light (ORVs) endorsed the strategies that can be used to protect Scenic and Recreaonal ORVs the Outstandingly Remarkable Values. This John Lile, expert paddler and Chair, Missisquoi River commitment of the various partners in river Basin Associaon protecon, a commitment developed and reaffirmed Walter Opuszynski, Director of Partnerships and throughout the study process, will foster effecve Markeng, Northern Forest Canoe Trail implementaon. Community and Vermont Keith Sampietro, Owner, Montgomery Adventures Department of Environmental Conservaon Cynthia Sco, Coordinator, Missisquoi River Basin endorsement of the Management Plan substanates Associaon and Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail suitability for designaon by demonstrang Natural Resource ORVs commitment to river conservaon. The support Barry Doolan and Stephen Wright, Geologists at the indicates that there is a demonstrated commitment to University of Vermont protect the river and be a partner in the Marjorie Gale, Geologist, Vermont Geological Survey, implementaon of recommendaons in the VT DEC Management Plan. Charlie Hancock, Vermont Cerfied Consulng

Forester

Parma Jewe, Licensed realtor and expert

ﬁsherwoman

Page 86

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

Rich Langdon, Aquac Biologist, VT Department of Federal Agency Heads Environmental Conservaon • Secretary of the Interior Mike Manahan, Board Member, Missisquoi River Basin • Secretary of Agriculture Associaon and expert fisherman • Chief of Army Corps of Engineers Corrie Miller and Bob Hawk, Linkage Coordinators, • Administrator Environmental Protecon Agency Staying Connected Iniave • Chairman of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Jeff Parsons and Dori Barton, Consulng Ecologists, (FERC) Arrowwood Environmental • Administrator of Federal Emergency Management Nancy Patch, Vermont County Forester Agency Bernie Pientka, Wildlife Biologist, Vermont Fish and • Administrator of Department of Transportaon Wildlife Fisheries Division Federal Highways Department Kristen Sharpless, Conservaon Biologist and • Head of any other affected federal department/ Educaon Coordinator, Vermont Audubon Society agency Eric Sorenson, Natural Communies Ecologist, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Diversity Program Regional and State Federal Agency Heads (formerly Nongame & Natural Heritage Program) • Regional Forester of Eastern Region 9 of USDA Forest Service Water Quality Resources and Hydropower • State Conservaonist of USDA Natural Resource VT DEC/Agency of Natural Resources/Watershed Conservaon Service Management Division • Commander and District Engineer of New England Karen Bates, Watershed Coordinator District of Army Corp of Engineers Jeremy Deeds, Environmental Scienst • Northeast Regional Director of US Fish & Wildlife Brian Fitzgerald, Streamflow Protecon Coordinator Service Rick Hopkins, Environmental Analyst • New England Ecological Services Field Office, Neil Kamman, Program Manager Northeast Region (5), Concord, NH (Secon 7 Cathy Kashanski, Environmental Analyst Endangered Species review) Leslie Mahews, Environmental Scienst • Regional Administrator Region 1 of Federal Staci Pomeroy, River Scienst Emergency Management Agency Historic and Cultural ORVs • Regional Administrator Region 1 of Environmental Bobby Farlice‐Rubio, Execuve Educator, Fairbanks Protecon Agency Museum • Vermont Division Administrator of US Department of Janice Geraw, Enosburgh Historical Society Transportaon Federal Highways Department Giovanna Peebles, State Archeologist, Vermont • Head of any other affected federal department or Division for Historic Preservaon agency Sco Perry, Montgomery Historical Society Sam Thurston, Lowell Historical Society

List of Recipients

The Study Report and Environmental Assessment Dra will be made available for public comment through the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Study documents will be posted on the following NPS Planning, Environment & Public Comment website websites for public view and formal comment: and noce of availability will be published in the local hp://parkplanning.nps.gov/ paper. hp://www.vtwsr.org/

Page 87

Chapter 5. Environmental Assessment

State of Vermont • Patrick Berry, Commissioner, Fish and Wildlife Department, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources • Pete LaFlamme, Director, Watershed Management Division, Department of Environmental Conservaon, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources •Deb Markowitz, Secretary, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources •David Mears, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservaon, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources • Chuck Ross, Secretary, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets • Brian Searles, Secretary, Vermont Agency of Transportaon • Peter Shumlin, Governor, State of Vermont • Mike Snyder, Commissioner, Department of Forests, Parks and Recreaon, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

Page 88

Appendix 1. Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Study Act

PUBLIC LAW 111–11—MAR. 30, 2009 Title V ‐ Rivers and Trails Subtle B ‐ Wild and Scenic Rivers Studies Secon 5101 ‐ Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a speciﬁed segment of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont for study for potenal addion to the Naonal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Authorizes appropriaons.

Appendix 1 Study Report. Study Act - Page 1

Appendix 1 Study Report. Study Act - Page 2

Appendix 2. Town Meeting Results

The following are the oﬃcial leers, minutes and Town Reports from the March 2013 Study Town Meengs in Franklin and Orleans Counes, Vermont.

Franklin County, Vermont Berkshire passed the March 4, 2013 Town Meeng arcle to support Wild and Scenic River designaon for the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers based on the Management Plan, and without federal acquision or management of lands.

Appendix 2 Study Report. Town Meeting - Page 1

Appendix 2. Town Meeting Results

Franklin County, Vermont Enosburgh Town and the Village of Enosburg Falls passed the March 5, 2013 Town Meeng arcle to support Wild and Scenic River designaon for the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers based on the Management Plan, and without federal acquision or management of lands.

Appendix 2 Study Report. Town Meeting - Page 2

Appendix 2. Town Meeting Results

Franklin County, Vermont Montgomery passed the March 5, 2013 Town Meeng arcle to support Wild and Scenic River designaon for the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers based on the Management Plan, and without federal acquision or management of lands.

Appendix 2 Study Report. Town Meeting - Page 3

Appendix 2. Town Meeting Results

Franklin County, Vermont Richford passed the March 4, 2013 Town Meeng arcle to support Wild and Scenic River designaon for the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers based on the Management Plan, and without federal acquision or management of lands.

Appendix 2 Study Report. Town Meeting - Page 4

Appendix 2. Town Meeting Results

Orleans County, Vermont At their March 5, 2013 Town Meeng, the voters present in the Town of Lowell did not carry the arcle supporng Wild and Scenic River designaon for the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers based on the Management Plan, and without federal acquision or management of lands. There was a voice vote, and not a ballot vote. They were the only municipality vong 2013 that did not support designaon in their Town.

Appendix 2 Study Report. Town Meeting - Page 5

Appendix 2. Town Meeting Results

Orleans County, Vermont Troy Town and the Village of North Troy passed the March 5, 2013 Town Meeng arcle to support Wild and Scenic River designaon for the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers based on the Management Plan, and without federal acquision or management of lands.

Appendix 2 Study Report. Town Meeting - Page 6

Appendix 2. Town Meeting Results

Orleans County, Vermont Wesield passed the March 5, 2013 Town Meeng arcle to support Wild and Scenic River designaon for the upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers based on the Management Plan, and without federal acquision or management of lands.

Appendix 2 Study Report. Town Meeting - Page 7

Appendix 2 Study Report. Town Meeting - Page 8

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

The following are records of support and endorsement for Wild and Scenic Designaon.

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic Study ‐ Berkshire, VT

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 1

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designaon ‐ Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 2

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designaon ‐ Enosburgh Conservaon Commission

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 3

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designaon ‐ Richford Conservaon Commission

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 4

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designaon ‐ Missisquoi River Basin Associaon (MRBA)

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 5

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designaon ‐ Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 6

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designaon ‐ Northern Forest Canoe Trail (NFCT)

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 7

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designaon ‐ Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 8

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designaon ‐ Vermont Council of Trout Unlimited

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 9

Appendix 3. Designation Support Letters

Support Leer for the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Designaon ‐ Montgomery Historical Society

Appendix 3 Study Report. Support Letters - Page 10