Responsiveness Summary  - Water Resources Draft, HEADWATERS 10/10/07

The Connecticut River Joint Commissions and the Headwaters Subcommittee appreciate the review and comments provided by the following agencies and organizations. In the summary below, the comment is listed followed by the Headwaters Subcommittee’s response, indicated in italics. 

NH Department of Environmental Services

1.	The NH Office of Emergency Management should be referred to as the NH Bureau of Emergency Management (change made).
2.	A more recent Economic Value Study has just been released.(Provided summary of findings  to subcommittee, who questioned the figures and believe them to be too high. Incorporated in final version)
3.	In addition to the RMAC recommending restoration of some stream gages mentioned on page 16, $120,000 has been requested by the NH House and NH Senate to fund stream gages. The bill is ready for Governor Lynch’s signature. (duly noted)
4.	As an additional aside to the description of the NH Shoreland Protection on page 32, HB 663, when signed by Governor John Lynch, will add funds to the Shoreland Protection Program to hire six additional staff members, to enact a permitting program and increase enforcement of the provisions of the Act.(duly noted; updated all references to the Act following 2007 legislative action)
5.	As a follow up to the recommendations for shoreland and floodplain development found on page 33, NH DES is currently conducting education and outreach relative to the Shoreland Protection Act. Arlene Allen recently gave a seminar to realtors on the provisions of the Act.(duly noted)
6.	Another recommendation for roads, railroads, and gravel pits found on page 35 that might be worth referencing is the Stream Crossing Guidelines, which the NH Fish and Game Department has developed for the NH Department of Environmental Services Wetlands Bureau. (added reference)
7.	An additional recommendation for stormwater management found on page 37 that may be worth considering is starting a pet waste outreach campaign. (subcommittee felt that this was too much detail and inappropriate for this largely rural area). 

Connecticut River Watershed Council

1.	The difference between the headings environmental agencies, DES and DEC should be made clear. (revised references)
2.	Individual plans call on DES or DEC to undertake certain activities (such as establishing aquifer mapping or water registration programs) when the plans should actually be addressing the legislatures of the two states.(agreed to add references to legislatures, but noted that agencies usually suggest legislative action)  
3.	Both states should be called upon to fund or continue funding a state CREP program relieving farmers of providing all of federal match required and to allow for projects that do not meet the federal guidelines for ‘pay back’, essentially allowing the state to fund projects the federal program won’t. (agreed to add to the plan). 
4.	The plan should call for federal and state agencies to schedule another fish tissue sampling starting now. (agreed that the study should be revisited in the Headwaters Region, focusing on trout rather than bass as in the original study, because the region is primarily a coldwater fishery).
5.	Water quality sampling should include sampling for chemical contamination - endocrine disrupters and other drugs. Water quality tests that document the problem could have the same education value as has mercury sampling and education leading to the heightened awareness of mercury. (Subcommittee believes that due to the extreme cost of sampling for pharmaceuticals, education is a more useful and cost-effective approach.)
6.	CRJC should review and monitor the management, expansion and construction of electric transmission lines. (Subcommittee is unsure how this relates to water resources, and believes that mechanical control of vegetation under such lines is now preferred over herbicides.)
1.	
7.	The plan should call on all of us to anticipate global warming – riparian zone protection for shade, advocate for elimination of thermal discharges throughout the watershed.(Subcommittee agreed to add language regarding shading by riparian buffers; there are no thermal discharges in the region.)
8.	Farm riparian buffers are required in VT at 10 feet and should be adopted in NH. (agreed to add language including recommending enforcement.)
9.	If permits that are not in legal compliance are discovered someone (for example, CRJC, CRWC, LRASC) should appeal the permit. There should be an active volunteer effort to assure compliance with permit conditions. (Subcommittee agreed that permittees should comply with their permit conditions but did not think it is the role of CRJC or the subcommittee to start an active effort to track compliance.)
10.	The plan should call on the Vermont legislature to create water withdrawal registration. (Subcommittee declined, believing that this is not an issue in the Headwaters region.)
11.	The plan should call on a regulatory agency to monitor and comment on rail line spraying plans to lessen the environmental impacts on the river. (Subcommittee notes that rail lines in Coos County are mowed, not sprayed.)