This was in the Deerfield Valley news. It looks like the whitewater kayak groups and the AMC oppose the Somerset project at Mount Snow. Hopefully their differences can be worked out. I don't think these groups are really concerned with the environment just with protecting their water releases. Most environmental groups indicate the overall environmental impact will be better after the project due to the removal of Snow lake, the return of the small brook back to it’s natural state as it was before the damming of create Snow lake, and the overall snowmaking plan changes.
from the Deerfiled Valley news
Questions flow over Mount Snow withdrawal plan
By Christian Avard
WEST DOVER- Representatives from the Green Mountain National Forest were on hand Thursday to answer questions from the public regarding Mount Snow’s proposal to access water from the Somerset Reservoir. Mount Snow ski resort is currently applying to withdraw 484 million gallons of water annually for snowmaking purposes. Of the 2,451 acres owned and operated by Mount Snow, approximately 894 acres are located within the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF). By obtaining a Special Use Permit (SUP) from the U.S. Forest Service and administered through the GMNF, Mount Snow can utilize these lands for snowmaking purposes. But critics are wary that the plan may affect a settlement ironed out among different parties, and one coalition is determined to keep that settlement permanent.
“The Deerfield River Settlement was something that many parties ironed out, an agreement that took five to six years to develop. Parties with an interest got together, settled their differences with New England Power Company (TransCanada’s predecessor) and we all signed an agreement that said the river would be operated in this way,” said Norman Sims, director of New England FLOW, a western Massachusetts whitewater advocacy group. “The four settlement agreement signatories who are most opposed to this pipeline idea are American Rivers, American Whitewater, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and New England FLOW. We’re all signers of the settlement agreement, which was then submitted to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and became the foundation for the New England Power Company’s license. That settlement agreement put a conservation easement around Somerset and Harriman reservoirs, including all of the power company lands in Vermont and Massachusetts. So the primary difficulty that the NGOs have is this pipeline would break the conservation easement.”
Sims said they understand how much Mount Snow means to the Deerfield Valley but maintains that the agreement cannot be broken and if so would send the wrong message.
“It would put a 40-foot path of pipeline and electrical riders through something that was intended to be protected forever against commercial development and this is simply commercial development, to withdraw water for a commercial ski area. We understand that skiing is important in Vermont. We’ve been in negotiation off and on with Mount Snow for 15 years. ASC kept having financial disasters and were going bankrupt and they would call off the negotiations with us. Those negotiations never failed. They just never concluded,” said Sims. “Then Mount Snow was sold and the new owners are apparently trying to get into Somerset and break the conservation easement without the approval of all the signatories. We oppose it. The Deerfield settlement was virtually the first of its kind. It became a model for other hydropower settlements all over the country. The idea of a settlement agreement that all parties would agree would not be broken was fundamental to all of those agreements. If Mount Snow breaks that conservation easement without everyone’s permission that’s going to echo throughout the country.”
Mount Snow planning director Laurie Newton recognizes the concerns New England FLOW raises and agrees that everything should be not be tinkered with.
“We understand about the settlement agreement and we feel that TransCanada, with the approval from FERC, could give us the water without breaching the settlement agreement and that’s our position,” said Newton. “We definitely are not looking to reopen the settlement agreement and we understand that no one wishes to do that and we feel this project can happen without the settlement agreement being breached or opened.”
Mount Snow must be in compliance with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) Water Withdrawal for Snowmaking Rules, which states every ski area needs one million gallons of water for every skiable acre. Mount Snow currently uses 230 million gallons but would like to compete with Stratton and Okemo, who can access 500-600 million gallons. If granted a permit, Mount Snow will not only increase their snowmaking but also come in compliance with ANR snowmaking rules. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the GMNF will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to disclose the potential environmental effects of this proposed action, which includes construction and operation of pipelines, a pump house, and new power line construction. Sims is concerned because New England FLOW feels an EA does not have as much impact as an environmental impact statement (EIS), which they prefer.
“The forest service is in a delicate situation and that’s why I think an environmental impact statement is a better choice than an EA, which is done in a less rigorous way” said Sims. “They don’t always do complete studies the way an EIS would do and the EIS raises the validity of the scientific study and takes out of the equation any doubts people may have of who’s influencing whom.”
“A draft EIS was done in 1998 that looked at Somerset, Harriman, and Howe field and so a lot of the work was done back then,” said Newton. “Obviously studies have to be updated. But when it comes down to it, it’s really the forest service that makes the final decision.”
A call made to Carol Knight of the U.S. Forest Service in Manchester, who is involved in the current environmental assessment, had not been returned by press time.
Sims maintains they want Mount Snow to succeed but in the end, the one thing they don’t want tampered with is the settlement that was agreed on among the parties.
“We’ve always talked with Mount Snow and we’ve always always had respect for them,” said Sims. “We made a deal with the power company when we first negotiated this. We said ‘we can settle this and negotiate a settlement, present that to FERC, and we if we all come together in agreement, we will be your best friends in defending that agreement and if you don’t want do that, then we will be your worse enemies and we will never go away.’ That was in 1988 and we’re still here.”
Joseph Kruszewski, owner and proprietor of the Matterhorn Inn, whose business depends on Mount Snow, attended the open house in hopes that the U.S. Forest Service will consider how much the ski area (and the community) depends on accessing the water.
“(The Deerfield Valley) is more important. Water is important for everybody. I know there’s some people supposedly in Massachusetts who are against the plan, but that’s all the way south. We should be first,” said Kruszewski. “I think everybody in the valley supports it because hopefully it means a better life for all of us. I hope that the forest service will think that the welfare of the valley is more important than a few trees in a huge forest.”
from the Deerfiled Valley news
Questions flow over Mount Snow withdrawal plan
By Christian Avard
WEST DOVER- Representatives from the Green Mountain National Forest were on hand Thursday to answer questions from the public regarding Mount Snow’s proposal to access water from the Somerset Reservoir. Mount Snow ski resort is currently applying to withdraw 484 million gallons of water annually for snowmaking purposes. Of the 2,451 acres owned and operated by Mount Snow, approximately 894 acres are located within the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF). By obtaining a Special Use Permit (SUP) from the U.S. Forest Service and administered through the GMNF, Mount Snow can utilize these lands for snowmaking purposes. But critics are wary that the plan may affect a settlement ironed out among different parties, and one coalition is determined to keep that settlement permanent.
“The Deerfield River Settlement was something that many parties ironed out, an agreement that took five to six years to develop. Parties with an interest got together, settled their differences with New England Power Company (TransCanada’s predecessor) and we all signed an agreement that said the river would be operated in this way,” said Norman Sims, director of New England FLOW, a western Massachusetts whitewater advocacy group. “The four settlement agreement signatories who are most opposed to this pipeline idea are American Rivers, American Whitewater, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and New England FLOW. We’re all signers of the settlement agreement, which was then submitted to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and became the foundation for the New England Power Company’s license. That settlement agreement put a conservation easement around Somerset and Harriman reservoirs, including all of the power company lands in Vermont and Massachusetts. So the primary difficulty that the NGOs have is this pipeline would break the conservation easement.”
Sims said they understand how much Mount Snow means to the Deerfield Valley but maintains that the agreement cannot be broken and if so would send the wrong message.
“It would put a 40-foot path of pipeline and electrical riders through something that was intended to be protected forever against commercial development and this is simply commercial development, to withdraw water for a commercial ski area. We understand that skiing is important in Vermont. We’ve been in negotiation off and on with Mount Snow for 15 years. ASC kept having financial disasters and were going bankrupt and they would call off the negotiations with us. Those negotiations never failed. They just never concluded,” said Sims. “Then Mount Snow was sold and the new owners are apparently trying to get into Somerset and break the conservation easement without the approval of all the signatories. We oppose it. The Deerfield settlement was virtually the first of its kind. It became a model for other hydropower settlements all over the country. The idea of a settlement agreement that all parties would agree would not be broken was fundamental to all of those agreements. If Mount Snow breaks that conservation easement without everyone’s permission that’s going to echo throughout the country.”
Mount Snow planning director Laurie Newton recognizes the concerns New England FLOW raises and agrees that everything should be not be tinkered with.
“We understand about the settlement agreement and we feel that TransCanada, with the approval from FERC, could give us the water without breaching the settlement agreement and that’s our position,” said Newton. “We definitely are not looking to reopen the settlement agreement and we understand that no one wishes to do that and we feel this project can happen without the settlement agreement being breached or opened.”
Mount Snow must be in compliance with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) Water Withdrawal for Snowmaking Rules, which states every ski area needs one million gallons of water for every skiable acre. Mount Snow currently uses 230 million gallons but would like to compete with Stratton and Okemo, who can access 500-600 million gallons. If granted a permit, Mount Snow will not only increase their snowmaking but also come in compliance with ANR snowmaking rules. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the GMNF will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to disclose the potential environmental effects of this proposed action, which includes construction and operation of pipelines, a pump house, and new power line construction. Sims is concerned because New England FLOW feels an EA does not have as much impact as an environmental impact statement (EIS), which they prefer.
“The forest service is in a delicate situation and that’s why I think an environmental impact statement is a better choice than an EA, which is done in a less rigorous way” said Sims. “They don’t always do complete studies the way an EIS would do and the EIS raises the validity of the scientific study and takes out of the equation any doubts people may have of who’s influencing whom.”
“A draft EIS was done in 1998 that looked at Somerset, Harriman, and Howe field and so a lot of the work was done back then,” said Newton. “Obviously studies have to be updated. But when it comes down to it, it’s really the forest service that makes the final decision.”
A call made to Carol Knight of the U.S. Forest Service in Manchester, who is involved in the current environmental assessment, had not been returned by press time.
Sims maintains they want Mount Snow to succeed but in the end, the one thing they don’t want tampered with is the settlement that was agreed on among the parties.
“We’ve always talked with Mount Snow and we’ve always always had respect for them,” said Sims. “We made a deal with the power company when we first negotiated this. We said ‘we can settle this and negotiate a settlement, present that to FERC, and we if we all come together in agreement, we will be your best friends in defending that agreement and if you don’t want do that, then we will be your worse enemies and we will never go away.’ That was in 1988 and we’re still here.”
Joseph Kruszewski, owner and proprietor of the Matterhorn Inn, whose business depends on Mount Snow, attended the open house in hopes that the U.S. Forest Service will consider how much the ski area (and the community) depends on accessing the water.
“(The Deerfield Valley) is more important. Water is important for everybody. I know there’s some people supposedly in Massachusetts who are against the plan, but that’s all the way south. We should be first,” said Kruszewski. “I think everybody in the valley supports it because hopefully it means a better life for all of us. I hope that the forest service will think that the welfare of the valley is more important than a few trees in a huge forest.”
