Chapter 4. Tactical Basin Planning: Managing Waters Along a Gradient of Condition and Recommended Changes To Current Basin Planning Framework (Draft December 2010)

 

 

 

Introduction

Over the past two years, the WSMD has been actively involved in rethinking and reshaping itself to create an organizational structure and management tools designed to promote the implementation of integrated water resources management.  This concept is best defined as a coordinated, efficient means of managing water resource issues through entire watersheds, with the primary objective of maximizing environmental benefit and water resource protection.  This effort includes three primary components:

• As a first step, the WSMD integrated its monitoring, assessment and planning sections into a new  Monitoring, Assessment and Planning Program (MAPP) under a single manager.  Effective watershed management begins with effective planning, which must have a solid, scientific foundation for decision-making. The water resource planning process is closely linked to and dependent upon monitoring and assessment activities. The creation of MAPP will enhance holistic monitoring, assessment and planning through an integration of the WSMD’s water resource programs.
  
  
• The second step in promoting watershed management, was the development of this Statewide Surface Water Strategy. This Strategy will serve as an overall guide during the development of basin plans by focusing management, planning, regulatory and funding efforts on basin-specific stressors, thereby allowing for prioritization of efforts to maximize environmental gain.  The Strategy will be used by basin planners, stakeholders and the public to indentify and collectively prioritize the stressors impacting each basin and sub-basin.
  
  
• The third step is the focus of this chapter which is a recommended approach for changes to the existing basin planning process.  This new process is referred to as “tactical basin planning.”  These recommendations are based on years of planning and resource management experience by the WSMD and are intended to serve as a “springboard” for further discussions.  The WSMD recognizes that the existing basin planning process has “buy in” from a large constituency, including federal, state, local agencies, watershed councils, planning groups, and the public.  Any changes to this framework will likely involve statutory and regulatory changes.  The WSMD hopes to initiate an open, public process with interested stakeholders, the public and the Vermont Legislature in the near future to discuss these recommendations.  These discussions will include consideration of water management typing, anti-degradation, and other approaches for managing surface waters that are discussed at the end of this chapter.   

 

Federal and State Law Requirements for Basin Planning

Basin planning is required by both federal and state law.  Section 303(e) of the federal Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500) requires that states engage in water quality planning.  40 CFR 130, in part, directs state agencies to prepare basin plans, to focus on priority issues and geographic areas, to identify priority point and nonpoint water quality problems, consider alternatives and recommend control solutions and funding sources.    At the state law level, basin and watershed planning requirements are found in a number of statutory and regulatory provisions, including but not limited to 10 V.S.A. §§ 1251, 1253 and 1258, and Section 1-02.D of the Vermont Water Quality Standards (VWQS).  VWQS §1-02.D. requires that basin plans:

• Inventory the existing and potential causes and sources of pollution that may impair waters
• Establish a strategy to improve or restore waters and to ensure full support of uses
• Identify strategies, where necessary, by which to allocate levels of pollution between various sources as well as between individual discharges
• To the extent appropriate, contain specific recommendations by the Secretary that include but are not limited to:
  • the identification of all known existing uses, salmonid spawning or nursery areas important to the establishment or maintenance of such fisheries
  • reference conditions appropriate for specific waters
  •  any recommended changes in classification and designation of waters
  • schedules and funding for remediation, stormwater management, riparian zone management, and other measures or strategies pertaining to the enhancement and maintenance of the quality of waters within a basin.
• In basins that include Class B waters which have not been allocated into one or more Water Management Types pursuant to VWQS §3-06, the basin plan shall propose the appropriate Water Management Type or Types based on both the existing water quality and reasonably attainable and desired water quality management goals. 

10 V.S.A. §1253(d) provides that basin plans must be developed on a five year rotational basis. Basin plans are currently prepared by the WSMD in accordance with the “Vermont Watershed Initiative – Guidelines for Watershed Planning,” which was developed in collaboration with numerous stakeholders and the public in a mediator-led effort before the Vermont Water Resources Panel.  The Guidelines describe the guiding principles of basin planning, the necessary contents of basin plans, the planning process and required public notification and lays out the steps of and a potential schedule for plan development and plan review and approval.  Upon submittal of a basin plan adopted by the Secretary, the Water Resources Panel is required to promptly initiate rulemaking and shall give due consideration to the recommendations contained in the basin plan.

 

Basin Planning – Current Framework and Challenges

As discussed above, the current basin planning framework is guided by federal and state law and regulation and the Vermont Watershed Initiative – Guidelines for Watershed Planning.  Based on extensive experience in applying these requirements over the past decade, the WSMD has identified several primary challenges with the current framework.  This section briefly describes the current basin planning process and associated challenges.

General Approach to Basin Planning. Effective watershed management begins with effective planning, which must have a solid, scientific foundation for decision-making.  Science should be closely integrated into the underlying policies upon which plans are based, therefore driving the subsequent decision-making process. Sound scientific data, tools, and analytical techniques should be included in an iterative decision making process that includes:

• Comprehensive assessment and characterization of the watershed;
• integrated goal setting and identification of environmental and public health objectives based on the condition or vulnerability of resources;
• focused identification of priorities;
• development of specific management options and action plans;
• implementation through permitting, voluntary efforts and enforcement, if necessary; and
• evaluation of effectiveness and revision of plans, as needed.

The initial phase of the current basin planning process involves a grass roots approach: holding public forums to identify issues and concerns; forming a Watershed Council and facilitating Council meetings; ranking issues in order of priority; holding panel discussions on watershed topics of interest; formulating strategies to address the issues with the public and the Council; developing surface water management goals; and with the public, collaboratively writing the watershed plan. The second phase involves on-the-ground watershed assessment, protection, and restoration projects to improve water quality.  In addition to traditional biological, chemical and physical water quality monitoring efforts, other assessment-type projects include Phase I and II stream geomorphic assessments that identify physical conditions and health in rivers and streams; bridge and culvert inventories that review the adequacy of these structures for road and stream protection and fish passage; and dam inventories. Protection and restoration projects can include: riparian buffer re-establishment, stream channel restoration and habitat improvement; trash/debris removal; selective dam removal; stormwater and agricultural best management practice implementation; securing easements; educating landowners; and working with municipalities on local protection strategies.

Monitoring and Assessment Challenges – the Role of the WSMD’s MAPP
Effective planning requires a solid, scientific foundation in order to effectively identify threats, establish priorities and guide implementation of management and regulatory controls.  The current DEC water programs produce a myriad of different types of “plans” including basin plans, watershed plans, source protection plans, river corridor plans, TMDLs, wastewater treatment facilities plans, delineation of waste management zones, development of source protection areas, assimilative capacity determinations, wasteload allocations, and delineation of water withdrawal drawdown areas.   The development and management of these types of watershed plans has often been regarded as a purely functional strategy and rarely been perceived as the start of an overall process.  This disconnect has sometimes resulted in misaligned projects and the absence of an effective and systematic approach to water resource protection and improvement.  In the past, there has also been a lack of coordinated and prioritized assessment on both a state-wide and watershed level.  Monitoring and assessment was often carried out on an ad hoc basis, often in response to outside pressures.  The MAPP will direct monitoring and assessment activities specifically targeted towards areas of highest need, allowing for priority setting that will promote the effective and efficient use of Agency resources both on a state-wide and watershed basis, with transparency to watershed partners.  Actual priority setting for monitoring and assessment activities will be accomplished by the WSMD management team in conjunction with watershed partners, and will include a proactive component that can identify threats to water resources and evaluate and prioritize risks. The MAPP Program will use these data deliberately and proactively to identify critical areas for surface water protection or project development, resulting in a positive impact on the development of proactive watershed management plans. 

Other Challenges
There are a number of other challenges that are impeding the efforts of the WQS to efficiently and effectively develop and implement basin plans.  The Statewide Surface Water Strategy including the recommended “tactical basin planning approach” described later in this chapter will address some of these challenges.  Examples of challenges include:

• An over-emphasis on general water quality education prior to Plan development: A large challenge encountered in the watershed planning process is that it takes far more time than initially anticipated to carry out an inclusive, educational process involving the many stakeholders in a watershed to develop a watershed management plan that all of the public will identify with and implement. This truly grassroots effort in some river basins has started from square one as no watershed organization existed. The DEC Watershed Coordinators have formed diverse and inclusive watershed councils, conducted numerous public forums and panel discussions in order to provide the council and other interested persons with the technical information necessary to formulate strategies, supported the “typing and classification” process, and further developed the information needed to draft the plan.  Once this process has been completed, in many instances coordinators have worked with entirely different sets of watershed partners to actually implement the Plan. Thus, coordinators are educating one stakeholder group who formulates the plan, while working with another in the implementation of plans, resulting in inefficiency.  However, the Division recognizes that good public process is absolutely essential to successful basin planning, and must remain an integral part of tactical planning.  The proposed tactical planning approach describes modifications to the approach and timeline for stakeholder and public participation in the development of tactical basin plans.

• Water Management Typing.  The concept of Water Management Typing was incorporated into the VWQS in recognition of the fact that a more finely tuned identification scheme could be used to better tailor water quality criteria and management strategies, including permit requirements, to protect Vermont’s waters.   Class B waters now encompass a wide variety of waters – e.g. upland mountain brook streams, major valley rivers, tailraces below hydroelectric dams.  Under WMT, Class B waters may be assigned into one of three subtypes – B1, B2 or B3.  Each WMT represents a more refined description of a Class B water based on more detailed criteria such as aquatic biota, wildlife and aquatic habitat, hydrology, boating or aesthetics.   VWQS §1-02.D.5 provides that a basin plan shall propose the appropriate WMT(s) based on both the existing water quality and reasonably attainable and desired water quality management goals. 
  
  Water management typing in basin plans has proven to be difficult for a number of reasons.  As a result, only two basin plans (White River and Poultney-Mettowee) include water management typing.  The first basin plan to include water management typing was for the White River in 2002.  As authorized by the Legislature in 2007, two additional  basin plans (Basin #11 - West/Williams/Saxtons and Basin #14 - Waits/Wells/ Ompompanossuc/Stevens) were adopted by the Secretary in 2008 without water management typing recommendations .  In 2009, the Legislature authorized two local regional planning commissions in Basin  #11  to prepare water management typing recommendations for that basin by January 2011. A fifth and sixth river basin plan (basin #5 - Northern Lake Champlain direct watersheds and basin #7 - Lamoille), were issued as draft plans in February 2009. Neither of these plans contained recommendations concerning water management typing. Signature by DEC and ANR on both documents, representing draft plan approval (versus “adoption”), occurred in October 2009.  Four other river basin plans have been developed with the respective councils and Watershed Coordinators holding meetings and prioritizing issues. These include the Otter Creek (basin #3), Winooski River (basin #8), Ottauquechee/Black drainage (basin #10) and the Barton/Black/Clyde drainage (basin #17).  Finalized water quality management plans without typing recommendations are being produced for all these basins in 2012.
  
  In response to Act 43 of the 2007 legislative session, ANR provided to the Vermont General Assembly in January 2008 a report entitled "Alternatives to Water Management Typing."  The report provided some important history and background related to water management typing. The report also offered several alternative approaches to typing that rely on the expansion of existing authority under Vermont’s Anti-Degradation Policy and the creation of new authority via statute and new classes of waters. These approaches were presented to serve in place of water management typing.  As of the date of this Strategy, an agreed upon alternative to or modification of water management typing has not been achieved.  Given this, the “Tactical Basin Planning” recommendations described below do not include water management typing in the basin planning process. The WSMD anticipates that additional stakeholder meetings will be held in the near future to discuss water management typing, basin planning and anti-degradation, as well as other potential approaches for refining the identification and protection of Vermont’s surface waters that are briefly discussed at the end of this chapter.   

 

Recommended Future of Basin Planning – Development of “Tactical Basin Plans”

The Tactical Basin Planning Framework recommended in this Strategy is not a new program, but rather a way of coordinating existing programs and building new partnerships that will result in efficient and environmentally sound management of Vermont’s surface water resources. Inherent in the design of the Framework is the belief that many stakeholder groups and individuals must have ongoing opportunities to effectively participate in planning for the management of  Vermont's watersheds. This chapter describes the process for developing individual, basin-specific and geographically explicit plans, establishing  priority monitoring and assessment approaches, and identifying  planning, permitting, and project-level initiatives to protect or restore surface waters. 

Principles of Tactical Basin Planning

 

1. Tactical basin plans will be developed according to the goals and objectives of the Vermont Surface Water Management Strategy to protect, maintain, enhance, and restore  the biological, chemical, and physical integrity, and public use and enjoyment of Vermont’s water resources, and to protect public health and safety. 
2. Each of the tactical basin plans will contain objectives, prioritized strategies, benchmarks and tasks in order to facilitate the implementation of the plans.
3. Priority will be given to those basins and sub-basins for planning and direct remediation actions where there are the most serious water quality problems or where surface waters in excellent condition and valuable aquatic features deserve greater protection.
4. Each plan must spell out clear, attainable goals and targeted strategies to achieve those goals. The goals must be stated for the river basin and for individual sub-basins. A final plan should contain a ‘report card’ by which progress can be tracked with regard to measurable indicators of each major goal and will:
• Address the major (highest priority) water quality stressors
• Identify surface waters in excellent condition (from biological, chemical, and physical assessment information)
• Address legal requirements for a basin plan
• Define clear roles for each participant
• Provide understandable connections between the roles of all participants and the environmental outcomes
• Track the outcomes and monitor the commitments of the participants

There are seventeen major river basins that serve as hydrologic planning units in which monitoring and management strategies will be focused. Within these major river basins, priority sub-basins will be identified for enhanced monitoring, assessment, and project development within the span of any given two-year rotational cycle.  This rotational planning process also identifies topics or areas of special importance in the basin, available management tools to address those topics, and specific recommendations on how to address key topics, including recommendations for technical assistance, project implementation, and education and outreach. The general idea is to focus resources and attention on a more concentrated area in a more coordinated fashion with the various stakeholders so that better utilization of resources (i.e., technical assistance and funding) can be achieved.
The Tactical Basin Planning Framework will provide the following benefits to interested stakeholders and Vermont’s citizens:

• Better information to guide  decision making for major river basins
• Increased ability (by ANR and partners) to resolve complex surface water resource problems
• Improved communication and coordination among governmental agencies
• More opportunities for stakeholders to get involved
• Increased ability to demonstrate results and benefits of environmental management
• More cost-effective use of public and private funds

Process for Developing Tactical Basin Plans  

Step 1 - Scoping and information gathering (monitoring and basin assessment)
For targeted basins (and sub-basins) within the rotational queue (see Figure 1. Basin Map for basin boundaries and proposed planner districts) a compilation of existing assessment data including but not limited to stream geomorphic assessments (and corresponding river corridor plans), biological assessment data, chemical water quality monitoring data, lake assessments, rare-threatened-endangered species, natural community inventories, etc. In addition to data compilation, this may include attendant process information such as:

• Assessment protocol - including the identification of very high quality waters, existing uses, in addition to the Vermont Surface Water Assessment Methodology (2006).
• Initial prioritization process (based on review of assessment information) – For highest priority protection, restoration, and conservation actions
• Summary of assessment data and reports used in the prioritization process

Step 2 - Prioritization and Targeting of Resources (internal)
A MAPP pre-basin planning meeting within ANR programs (within DEC - Water Quality, Water Supply, and Wastewater Management Divisions, DFW – Fisheries, and DFPR – Watershed Forestry as examples) will be held to review current (and long term trends) water quality monitoring data, discuss known issues in the basin, direct additional (near term) monitoring, identify priority projects (both protection and restoration), and current levels/ areas of funding.  This formula is an intra-agency tool for prioritizing (sub) basins within a major river basin for further action, based upon a ranking system that considers both ecological and human health to meet restoration and protection goals and objectives. It provides a basis for decision making and targeting of program resources.

Step 3 - Prioritization and Targeting of Resources (external)
Once current monitoring and assessment data has been compiled and reviewed, initiate external stakeholder meetings with sister agencies, technical entities, watershed and other organizations (e.g., Conservation Districts, Regional Planning Commissions, etc). Identify and coordinate shared priorities and develop “tactical” approach to planning and project implementation for the basin in queue.  In addition, solicit partner programs for areas of opportunity – funding and project priorities.

Step 4 – Public Outreach and Awareness of the Basin Planning Process
Commence with public forums and targeted meetings to present data on known impairments as well as waters exhibiting very good to excellent biological or physical integrity (or other high quality characteristics) to identify and solicit public input to identify gaps and seek recommendations on priority areas (surface waters) for protection and restoration.

Step 5 - Development of Tactical Basin Plans and Attendant Strategies
Develop draft workplan that identifies priority projects and enhanced program implementation. Workplan elements will also include strategies for the protection of very high quality waters, impaired waters remediation, etc. Priorities will be identified as per concurrent management plans (e.g. river corridor management plans) and the stakeholder prioritization process. Commence with stakeholder process to review strategies and formalize as adopted workplan. Present at final round(s) of public meetings/ presentations.

Step 6 – Implementation of Tactical Basin Plans
Initiate implementation of tactical plan. Develop agreements and MOU’s between stakeholder groups as to the lead partners for project implementation and identification and procurement of project funding sources.

Proposed Tactical Basin Planning Timeline for a Specific Basin

Figure 1 – Proposed Basin Map with Proposed Planner Districts

 

Structure of the Tactical Basin Plans

Each Tactical Basin Plan will provide an introduction about tactical planning process, a description of the basin and priority sub-basins that are areas of focus and a prioritization of primary stressors in the basin where strategies will be focused to address the activities causing the stressor(s).  
In general, tactical basin plans will be developed to incorporate the following strategies:

• Strategies that address impaired or altered waters
• Strategies that  address protection of Certain High Quality Waters and Healthy Watersheds
• Strategies that address new threats to surface waters, stressors that affect large areas of the basin, or stressors that are top priorities for other reasons.  These stressors may be targeted by:
1. Specific sub-basins within the rotational basin planning process for focused monitoring, assessment, protection, restoration and outreach - (i.e., targeted sub-basins)
2. By stream order- in order to target priority statewide and surface water stressors and strategies for focused areas of the basin and sub-basins.

Where problems affecting impaired waters are known and solutions are clear, the plan must contain specific remediation actions. For such waters, this would include a list of actions to be taken, who will take those actions, a timeline for completion of the actions, an estimate of the cost of the action and an indication of the most probable funding for the action. Where the problems are not fully known, or solutions are not clear, an adaptive management strategy will be adopted.   Here, the plan must contain a strategy for reasonable actions that should improve the impaired waters, as well as a process to acquire the necessary information to further define the problem and develop new solutions as soon as reasonably possible. In this regard, ongoing monitoring and assessment programs will determine whether or not we are moving towards desired water quality improvement goal(s).

 

Resources to Support Tactical Basin Planning

MAPP Subcommittee
The MAPP Subcommittee is a body of representatives from the Watershed Management Division (WSMD) and internal and external partners that play a role in natural resource monitoring and assessment. These partners include monitoring and assessment, planning and technical assistance (River Management, Wetlands, Stormwater, and Lakes and Ponds) initially, broadening out to include other programs within the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), and sister agencies (AOT and AAFM). This workgroup will meet annually to compare notes, plan and coordinate the monitoring and data gathering efforts to occur in the coming year for the purpose of stretching monitoring resources around the state. They coordinate high-level objectives and who will sample what, where and when.

Watershed Coordinators/ Basin Planners
Watershed coordinators are staff assigned to serve as liaisons in a given basin planning process among the agencies, the basin stakeholders and local concerns. Their job is to specialize in their watershed, to know what resources might be available to address the concerns and facilitate the tactical basin planning process to develop and implement plans that address high priority issues and known stressors in each basin. 

River Basin Teams
River basin teams are the field-level, technical entities within the Watershed Management Framework. These teams are composed of field staff from most State and Federal Natural Resource Agencies (e.g. USDA-NRCS), Regional Planning Commissions, Natural Resource Conservation Districts, Watershed Organizations, and citizen advocates. These teams help in development of monitoring strategies, education and outreach, prioritization of issues and watersheds within the basin, planning, and networking among technical staff and local leaders to apply agency resources to implement strategies identified in tactical basin plans. 

 

Stakeholder Process

The three major components of the stakeholder process for the tactical basin planning process includes:

1. Invite other technical (internal) partners to consider their role for plan coordination and implementation and how this collaboration can be mutually beneficial

2. External outreach to determine which programs would complement the effort to coordinate existing programs to protect or improve water quality. Solicit input from intra-agency programs (WSMD, DEC, ANR, other technical partners) in how this can be achieved.

3. Solicit input from external programs (Examples include but not limited to: USDA-NRCS, VAAFM, VTrans, CVPS, ACOE, USFWS, VACD-NRCDs, etc).

 

Funding

Ultimately , it is envisioned that the WSMD priorities will be explicitly identified in tactical basin plans (Division priorities are identified and developed via the tactical planning process).

Themes central to the funding strategy include:

• Ensuring state dollars are invested in the most important water quality projects;
• Leveraging state dollars in every way possible to attract additional federal or private funds for appropriate and priority projects;
• Ensuring existing federal authorizations related to Vermont are appropriated to the maximum extent practicable; and
• Accounting for successful pollution reductions throughout all aspects of ANR work, whether from forest and recreation, fish and wildlife, or environmental conservation sectors.
• Identifying and apply funding opportunities within the tactical basin planning timeline and framework to develop one set of priority funding recommendations for each basin in the tactical planning queue.

 

Use of the Plan

Each Tactical Basin Plan will include an Implementation Table that lays out broad objectives and then frames out specific actions to achieve the stated objectives.  It is anticipated that the list of action items will first be expanded, based on input from agency staff and watershed partners, and later prioritized and refined based on the staff and financial resources available to implement specific actions.  Action items will include both necessary data collection and assessment efforts, in addition to waterbody-specific implementation activities; action items should be able to be accomplished within the next two to five years.  Action items will address known stressors in each basin and reflect the primary goals and objectives identified in the Strategy as expressed in a geographically relevant manner.

Benefits to Tactical Basin Planning

The major benefits to tactical basin planning include:

• More direct focus on the resource to be protected, tailored to basin-specific stressors and conditions that are germane to that basin and sub-basins.   
• Coordination among programs and agencies that perform similar duties, thereby making technical assistance and available funding a more efficient and predictable process.  
• Improved capabilities to address complex environmental issues that cross agencies' jurisdictions.
• Improved basis for management decisions as better coordination of monitoring is established and more information is gathered on a specific basin.
• Consistency and continuity is encouraged as an initial framework is prepared and applied to all basins and sub-basins in a systematic and sequential (rotational) fashion.
• Opportunities for enhanced data sharing as agencies and organizations improve communication and coordination.
• Encouragement of innovative solutions with input from the various stakeholders and partners.

 

 Other Approaches for Better Refining the Identification and Protection of  Vermont’s Surface Waters

In addition to the creation of MAPP and the development of this Statewide Surface Water Strategy, the WSMD recently took the lead in crafting the Department’s Interim Anti-Degradation Implementation Procedure.  During all of these efforts, the WSMD has had intensive discussions regarding how to better refine the identification of Vermont’s high quality waters beyond the existing Class A and B scheme.   A more finely tuned identification scheme could then be used to better tailor water quality criteria and management strategies, including permit requirements, to protect Vermont’s waters.

This chapter has already described monitoring and assessment challenges and a number of other challenges in basin planning.  With the creation of MAPP and the Strategy, solutions to these challenges are now underway.  The proposed “Tactical Basin Planning” approach will also address a number of challenges.  However, water management typing is still a requirement in state law and must be addressed.  The WSMD would like to discuss ideas for enhancing surface water protection with stakeholders either through the use of current tools or through the creation of new tools. 

A number of statewide inventories as well as watershed-wide plans and monitoring assessment reports specifically highlight some of Vermont’s exceptional rivers and streams for aquatic community health and human recreational use.  These documents and studies could be used as a starting point for identification of the waters warranting enhanced protection.  A number of different ways to better protect these “special” waters are discussed in this section.

Class A Re-Classifications
The 1986 "Pristine Streams Act" created the opportunity for any waterbody supporting habitat that is ecologically significant and has water quality that meets at least Class B standards to be re-classified to Class A. A re-classification is a rulemaking procedure before the Water Resources Panel where a public interest determination must be made pursuant to Vermont's Water Pollution Control Statute, 10 VSA §1253. Class A1 ecological waters must be managed to “achieve and maintain waters in a natural condition.”  All waters above 2,500 feet NGVD are Class A1 waters.  Rivers and streams to date petitioned to be Class A1 waters are few and include: Kidder Brook and tributaries, Cobb Brook, Upper Reach of the Winhall River, and Cold Brook and its tributaries.  Additional streams have the water quality that might be worth of Class A designation. 

Opportunities to better protect Class A1 waters
Water quality standards for Class A1 waters are stricter than those for Class B waters, thereby providing a means for protecting these ecologically intact waters.  There are a number of ways to enhance review and protection of these excellent waters.  First, Act 250 regulates development above 2500 feet where the bulk of Class A1 waters exist at this point, but there is not always Act 250 review for developments in A1 watersheds below the 2500 foot elevation.  This could be changed with the addition of “development with a Class A watershed” as a trigger for Act 250 review.  In addition, the “Headwaters” criterion (1A) could be used to much more specifically protect Class A waters.   There are no current guidelines for protection of these waters but rather the guidance is that if several other criteria in Act 250 are met then, by default, this Headwaters criterion is met.   Development thresholds and thresholds for more stringent management practices could be added to the requirements for a project to meet this criterion. 

Creating a New Classification of Waters
Another method for further differentiating among Class B waters would be to create new class(es) of waters in Vermont, rather than using water management typing. An ongoing debate relating to water management typing is whether or not it created a new class of waters, and if so, whether it was authorize under Vermont law.  The creation of additional classes of waters would require an amendment to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 47.  Other states have many more classes of waters to describe their diverse water resources with greater specificity. 

Class 1 Wetland Designation
There are only three Class 1 wetlands designated in Vermont to date but there are others that might qualify for this category which enjoys additional statutory and regulatory protection. Currently, the wetlands designated as Class 1 include: Dorset Marsh in Dorset; Tinmouth Channel in Tinmouth; and North Shore Wetland in Burlington.

Outstanding Resource Waters (Tier 3 of Anti-Degradation)
An additional tool to manage and protect Vermont’s waters is through the designation of Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) pursuant to Tier 3 of Vermont’s Anti-Degradation Policy and 10 V.S.A. §14242.  ORWs are waters of the State designated by the Vermont Water Resources Panel pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §1424a as having exceptional natural, recreational, cultural or scenic values. To gain an ORW designation, petitioners must provide evidence and testimony, in a contested case hearing before the Panel, that the waters in question have exceptional natural, cultural, scenic, or recreational values. To date, the following waters have been designated as ORWs: the Batten Kill and its West Branch, Pikes Falls on the North Branch of Ball Mountain Brook, the lower Poultney River and Great Falls on the Ompompanoosuc River. No ORWs have been designated since 1996.

Existing Uses (Tier 1 of Anti-Degradation)
“Existing uses” are those uses of waters that have been designated by the Secretary and have actually occurred on or after November 28, 1975, in or on waters, whether or not the use is included in the classification of the water, and whether or not the use is actually occurring.  Once an existing uses is designated by the Secretary, the use cannot be eliminated.  In addition, the level of water quality necessary to protect an existing use must be maintained and protected.

Historically, the Agency has designated well known and documented existing uses, e.g. swimming holes.  In the White River Basin Plan, boating was identified as an existing uses along the mainstem of the White River.  Other uses, such as fishing have also been recognized.  In order to protect existing uses, the basin planning and permitting processes could expand both the number and type of existing uses that are identified and designated for existing use protection. 

High Quality Waters (Tier 2 of Anti-Degradation)
Tier 2 of the Vermont Anti-Degradation Policy provides for the protection of high quality waters, which are waters shoes quality exceeds minimum water quality standards for Class B waters.  The Agency applies this level of protection on a parameter by parameter basis; i.e. the impact of a proposed discharge is evaluated on the basis of individual parameters such as dissolved oxygen, or pH.  A high quality water must be protected to ensure that minimum standards will be achieved and that a lowering of water quality is allowed only when the Secretary determines that the adverse impacts of not allowing the lowering of water quality exceed the benefits of maintaining it.  In all cases, the level of water quality necessary to maintain and protect all existing uses must also be maintained.

There are two ways that Tier 2 anti-degradation review could be used to better refine protection of Class B Waters.  This is similar to water management typing which represents a more refined description of a Class B water based on more detailed criteria such as aquatic biota, wildlife and aquatic habitat, hydrology, boating or aesthetics.  These two approaches using Tier 2 include:

• Identification of High Quality Waters by Certain Uses
  In addition to evaluating high quality waters on a parameter by parameter basis, which the Department currently does, it could also designate and evaluate waters on a waterbody by waterbody basis.  Many states create specific designations of high quality waters that correspond to a use that is protected for a given type of waterbody. For example, high quality waters could be designated based on meeting certain thresholds for wild trout fisheries, for water quality or for water chemistry.  Very specific criteria would be developed to determine which waters qualified for these special waterbody designations and standards would be tailored to protect these waters. For instance, if a waterbody was designated as a wild trout fishery, then proposed activities would be evaluated against tailored criteria to determine if the level of water quality necessary to maintain the wild trout population is sustained. 

• Development of a “Tier 2.5” Level of Protection for Certain High Quality Waters
  Certain states have created a Tier 2.5 as part of their anti-degradation policy in order to create a level of water protection higher than Tier 2 for waters that meet certain characteristics, but is not as restrictive as Tier 3 (Outstanding Resource Waters).  EPA has supported Tier 2.5 by states to create a higher level of protection that is tailored to each state’s desire to beyond the protection afforded under Tier 2.  For example, Delaware and Rhode Island use this approach to protect waters that are of exceptional recreational or ecological significance.  The designation of a Tier 2.5 water is not necessarily based on exceptional water quality, but instead focuses on the particular use that is to be protected.  For example, the presence of an important recreational use (wild trout fishery, white water rafting) or presence of an endangered species could be the basis for Tier 2.5 protection.