-------
GOVERNOR'S PLANNING COUNCIL
Central Planning Office
CPO Bulletin //RP10
August 26, 1963
REPORT ON GAYSVILLE RESERVOIR
The attached report was prepared by the Water Resources Review
Panel to provide background data on proposals for the development
of the Gaysville Reservoir.
The Water Resources Panel is one of several similar panels
currently reviewing various elements of Vermont's natural
resources.
Members of the panel participating in this report are:
Carl Gordon, Chairman, Lyndonville
Senator Aline Ward, Moretown
Representative Arthur Williams, Fayston
Representative Robert Graf, Rupert
Merritt Thomas, Rutland
Sidney Smith, Ludlow
Frederick Mehlman, tlontpelier
Donald Uebster, liontielier
William Albert, Montpelier
William Country-nan, Horthfield
Andrew Tessman, Burlington
-------
WATER RESOURCES REVIEW PP NEL
GAYSVILLE RESERVOIR
General
Prior to 1927, power interests had developed a darn at the approximate boa—
tiori of the proposed Gaysville FLood Control E in. This dam and power plant was
lost during the flood of 1927 and considerable damage was wrought in the inrnediat
area. Power Interests never redeveloped a darn at the site.
As a result of the flood of 1927, the federal government studied the White
River for sites that mi bt be suitable for flood control structures that would
serve as a part of a conprehensive flood control system for the Connecticut River.
This site was examined for the single puxpose type of project for flood control
only, and for the dual purposes of flood control and power storage.
The Flood Control Act of l9 41 authorized construction of the Gaysville Darn
and Reservoir on the main stream of the White River for flood control and conserva-
tion stora g . However, the Federal Flood Control Law, as an nded In 19 1411, provided
that in all new projects, state or states affected should have an opportunity to
work with the Corps of E gIneers during the planning stage and, if the state ob-
jected to the final plan proposed by the engineers, that objection should be in-
cluded in the report submitted to Congress. Under this Act, tht Ga3jsville project
previously authorized was to be treated as a new project and was not in line for
development unless re-authorized by Congress. Thus, in principle, state concur-
rence must be given for the Corps of Engineers to build this proj ect.
The darn site is located on the White River at Gaysville, in the Town of
Stockbridge, at a point 31.6 miles above its point of juncture with the Connecticut
1 iver, It has a drainage area of 226 square miles and is situated in an area that
might be described as mountainous. The flood control structure, as originally
authorized by Congress, would have been a variable radius concrete structure, if
foundation conditions would allow, rising to a heig ht of 197 feet above the stream
bed which has an elevation of 630 feet mel at this point.
-------
—2—
Flood Control
The Gaysvillo Reservoir must be considered to be a vital link In the corni re—
hensive flood ccntrol plans for the Corriecticut River. Therefore, the questicri is
“when will it be built?”, not “if it is built” and, secondly, “what type of struc-
ture would provide a maximum of benefit to the state of Vermont, while providing
flood control benefits needed for the dowririver states?”, arid not “do we want a
structure at this site?”.
Other Potential
The White River Valley is at present a lightly developed basin with a diminish—
ing apjicultural economy. A substantial pond with reascnably stable water level is
presently desired by many residents in the basin area. The water presently flowing
In the White River in the vicinity of Gaysville Is clear, sparkling water of lirht
pollutional load, with present water quality approaching that of bathing waters.
Modest effort upstream would produce water suitable for all recreational uses.
Development of this site for hydroelectric energy, either at the darn or down-
stream purposes, would result in substantial drawdowns and potentially widely vary-
ing water levels, that could be detrimental to sound rccroational development. It
Is possible, however, that discharges outside of the usual recreation periods might
be programed for the benefit of downstream users and still provide improved environ-
ment and habitat for fish and wildlife. Modest storage at the site for d1schar e
during normal low flow periods would be most beneficial to the downstream areas.
It could Immeasurably improve some 31 miles of the White River, possibly to the peint
of making it a maj or trout fisheries area of regional inportance. It would alac
provide improved dilution ratios for conveyance of adequately treated wastes from
downstream con nunitIes.
Considerations
The White River Valley above Gaysville Is quite narrow at certain points and
the hillsides are quite steep, which could cause some difficulties in developing
-------
—3—
good recreational uses unless careful p1annIn is undertaken. It is believed
that there are several opportunities for creatin [ substantial sub—impoundments
in the area that should be studied to determine whether they could further add
to the recreation potential and usefulness of the site. Discharges from the
permanent pond of 500—1000 acres for power purposes would require substantial
drawdown arid would result in an unstable water level behind the dam and the expc’sure
of cleared land from the maximum pond elevation to that of the actual water surface.
Power development at the site Is considered to be insignificant since it is esti—
mated that the proposed power plant at G&ysvllle would produce 33,000,000 KWH at
a capacity factor of 36%. ThIs represents less than three months ç’rowth in use of
electricity In Vermont based on the recorded values for 1962 when conpared with
1961. Such use would be characterized by relatively large stream flows downstream,
with Intermittent periods of little or no flow in the downstream watercourse.
Recormendatlons
Good usable water surfaces are not generally available in this section of the
state and, therefore, all possible recreation values should be thoroughly Investl—
ated and evaluated. It would appear that in the long period that hydro—power from
this project would be of minor consequence as compared to the short and long—term
recreation values in the basin and, therefore, storage withdrawals for bydro—genera—
tion purposes should be considered only If it Is completely coTrpatible with other
desired developments, arid then only on a programed out—of—season type of withdrawal.
These recommendations are predicated upon the assumption that If hyclro—genera—
tion Is not a project purpose, that downstream flows may be au nented to provide a
minimum flow of at least 50 c. f. s. Adequate stream flow supplementation through
regulated discharge during low flow periods should be considered as an essential
part of the structure. Peripheral land use should be given careful consideration
and appropriate efforts made to protect the recreation values that should be built
-------
—
into the project. This might include consideration of suitable land acquisition,
zoning, highway relocation, to produce a n ximun of desired utilization and other
similar factors. State agencies should be directed by the Governor to proceed
imn diately with coordinated planning for this project with the above points as
minimum criteria so that a unified state plan can be discussed with the Corps of
&igineers.
-------
GOVERI T OR’S PLANNING COUNCIL
Central Planning Office
CPO Bulletin # 1(2 13
SeptemDer 4, 1963
REPORT BY WATER RESOURCES REVIEW PANEL ON
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONNECL’ICUT RIVER
The report was designed to supply the Planning Council with tack-
ground information and recommendations sufficient to support a
policy position pending the development of more complete infornia-
tion from studies now underway.
The S4ater Resources Review Panel is one of several similar panels
currently reviewing the various elements of Vermont ’S natural re-
sources.
Members of the panel participating in this report are:
Carl Gordon, Chairman, Lyndonville
Senator Aline Ward, Moretown
Representative Arthur Williams, Fayston
Representative Robert Graf, Rupert
Merritt Thomas, (tester
Sidney Smith, Ludlow
Frederick Mehltnan, Montpelier
Donald Webster, Montpeli€x
William Albert, Montpeliar
William Countryman, Northfield
-------
WATER RESOURCES REVIEW PANEL
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER
Authorization
A resolution requested by Senator Bush of Connecticut was passed by the Senate
Committee on Public Works on May 11, 1962. This resolution called for the comprehen-
sive investigation of the Connecticut River Basin. This resolution differs from earliei
resolutions which authorized review of prior reports by reason of the following word-
ing, “with particular reference to developing a comprehensive plan of improvement for
the basin in the interest of flood control, navigation, hydro-electric power develop-
ment, water supply, and other purposes, coordinated with related land uses.” This is
undoubtedly the broadest language yet used in authorizations for water resource
invest igat ions.
Stated Sc pe of Study
The Corps of Engineers have stated “the study will encompass an analysia of
needs, basinwide and for major subdivisions, for Stream flow regulation, water supply,
water quality, control, flood control and drainage, watershed treatment, navigation,
hydro-electric power, recreation, fish and wildlife conservation and other purposes.
It is contemplated that in addition to the State agencies of the basin that there
will be eight (8) Federal departments involving nineteen (19) agencies participating
in the study.”
Stated Method of Approach
The Corp has stated that in order to insure a truly comprehensive investigation
and ultimate development of a comprehensive plan that they plan to enlist tihe aid of
other agencies, Federal, State and private, to assist in the undertaking. It is
anticipated that more than $2,000,000 will be made available for the study. These
funds appropriated can be used by the Corps to reimburse Federal agenci.es for services
reguested and for the usual contractual services. No mcney can be used to reimburse
states for aasist apce .
The original prediction was that this study would extend over a four (4) year
period and there are some who now feel that it will take a longer period.
A Coordinating or Advisory Committee will be established to periodically review
the progress of the study, to comment and advise the working groups as to trendi of
the investigation, to maintain awareness of the considerations inc1ui ed in the investi-
gation, and to provide a laison with the State and departmental leaders and the public.
The panel stresses the need for a Vermont representative on the Committee who would be
given authority and responsibility to speak for the Governor on matters pertaining to
Vermont.
Recommendations
The full development of the water and related land resources of the Connecticut
River Basin is easential to the future economy of the region. There can be no doubt
that there will be considerable value in the study and that it will determine the
pattern of development for the future. Therefore, the State must cooperate and parti-
cipate in the study to the fullest extent possible, if our interests are to be truly
reflected. The study is to extend over several biennial periods, so the state repre-
sentative to serve on the study should be selected with the thought in mind that he
should be able to serve for the full period of the study.
-------
2.
There should be a state committee formed of key individuals from each state
agency by the Governor. This committee should meet with the Governor’s state repre-
sentative regularly to furnish information and advice to the state representative 3
It is also recommended that the states of New Hampshire and Vermont establish a
classification for all the waters of the Connecticut River In the Basin in the very
near future through the existing New England Interstate Water Pollutiofl Control Com-
pact. This classification should then be passed on to the Connecticut River study
group.
Successful state participation in this comprehensive study will require modest
additional funds. The state program for participation must be developed now and
early funding is most essential.
-------
GOVERNOR’ S PLANNING COUNCIL
Central Planning Office
CPO Bulletin #RP 14
Sept e mber 4, 1963
A. REPORT El WATER RESOURCES REVIEW PANEL ON
- REGULATION OF STREAM FLOWS OF STNTE W&TERS
The report was designed to supply the Planning Council with back-
ground information and recommendations sufficient to support a
policy position pending the davelopment of more complete informa-
tion from studies now underway.
The Water Resources Review Panel is one of several similar panels
currently reviewing the various elements of Vermont ’s natural re-
sources.
Member 8 of the panel participating in this report are:
Carl Gordon, Chairman, Lyndonville
Senator Mine Ward, Moretown
Representative Arthur Williams, Fayston
Representative Robert Graf, Rupert
Merritt Thomas, Ch a p ter
Sidney Smith, Ludlow
Frederick Mehlman, Montpelier
Donald Webster, Montpelier
William Albert, NoAtpelier
William Countryman, Northfield
-------
WATER RESOflRCES REVIEW PANEL
REGULATION OF STREA}1 FLOWS OF STATE WATERS
General
There are numerous dams in Vermont that have been built across our streams or at
the outlets of lakes or ponds for the purpose of holding back water so that it might
be passed through turbines to produce electric energy. This storage of water is re-
ferred to as pondage — short term holdback and as storage - long term holdback 0 As a
direct result of this ability to hold back water for use at a future time, the down-
stream watercourse may be deprived, of normal stream flow This condition may persist
for a few hours or a few days as a result of pondage or for longer periods as a result
of storage.
At some of these developments a second problem of altered stream flow may occur
when the hydro station is located at some distance from the dam. In such instances,
the water is withdrawn from the pondage or storage area through penstocks or canals
and thereby conveyed to the turbines. La such instances the original stream channel
can be dewatered and the natural ecological environment completely changed. In some
instances, valuable fishery spawning grounds can be destroyed, dilution waters for
pollution abatement denied, and recreation potential reduced.
Problem
The Federal Power Commission has held proceedings to consider issuing licenses
to the owners of these hydro-electric installations and has sought information con-
cerning atate and local interests in these matters The term of these licenses is
fifty (50) years and conditions of use based on substantiated evidence are assigned.
The Federal Power commission has announced that it is stepping up its activities
in licensing plants in New England and that all public utility operations on or af ec-
jag navigable waters will be licensed in the immediate future.
Recommendations
The time has come for Vermont to give full consideration to the value of its
water resources. Giving this consideration, the relatbe values now and for the
future derived from maintained stream flows and the ability of fish to migrate in
our watercourses must be considered.
Careful consideration should be given to the establishment of some established
standard for minimum maintained stream flows 0 State computed 3nalysis of hydro ogii:
stream flow data would suggest that for Vermont streams that 020 cubic feet p r
second of flow can be expected for each square mile of the drainage area 957. of the
t iii .
This topic is vital to any state water resources plan and program because all
projects involving pollution control, recreation, industrial water useage, fisheries,
agricultural uses of water must have a datum plane of t inimum natural flows upon
which to formulate design criteria, project benefits, and establish programs.
It is recommended that appropriated legislation be drafted and introduced into
the Legislature, Such legislation should establish low flow requirements and have
provisions for hearings together with the usual safeguards.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |