Responsiveness Summary - Draft, Water Resources Chapter
Upper Valley River Subcommittee 10/19/07

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

NH Department of Environmental Services
submitted by Laura M. Weit, Watershed Planner, NH Lakes and Rivers Programs

1.	A more recent Economic Value Study that is referenced on page 7 has just been released. (Subcommittee read and discussed summary of this study’s findings; revised section on page 7 to reflect findings)
2.	An additional recommendation that may be worth considering for water quality monitoring is encouraging Upper Valley Subcommittee members to participate in VRAP. (Subcommittee decided that this is a good recommendation to aim at conservation commissions)
3.	On page 15, Two Rivers/Ottauquechee Planning Commission should be referenced as Two Rivers – Ottauquechee Regional Commission. (made change)
4.	As an update to streamflow gaging stations on pages 16-17, the Stream Gage Task Force requested $120,000 for the installation of stream gages. This request has been included in the capital budget (added reference)
5.	As an update to instream flow on page 18, a Protected Instream Flow will soon be adopted for the Souhegan River. (added reference)
6.	Under the extreme storm section and the climate change section found on pages 20 and 21 respectively, it might be helpful to include a citation from a recent study Michael Simpson from Antioch New England conducted which found “high intensity storms, as a result of climate change, should be expected with greater frequency in this part of New England. The study concluded that current engineering design specifications for culvert sizing is inadequate to handle the higher frequency of storms of greater intensity.”(added reference)
7.	Some recommendations that may be worth considering for flow and flood control found on page 22 include: 1) referencing the NH Fish and Game Department’s Stream Crossing Guidelines to properly size culverts for fish passage and 2) increase the minimum design standards for bridge and culverts to reflect current climate research. (agreed to leave this to engineers)
8.	To remedy the lack of enforcement of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act it might be helpful to mention that HB 663 will provide funds to hire six additional staff. (duly noted; updated text to reflect)
9.	As an update to the recommendations for shoreland and floodplain development it may be helpful to note that Arlene Allen with the NH DES Shoreland Protection Program recently held a seminar for realtors on the provisions of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act.(duly noted; recommend that this become part of required training for all NH realtors)
10.	Another recommendation that may be worth considering for stormwater runoff is limiting the percentage of impervious cover on each lot.(this varies by use, and is addressed in the plan)

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
submitted by Ben Copans, Watershed Coordinator, Water Quality Planning Division
The gauging stations have changed a bit. The two gauging stations you have listed on the Waits River have now been discontinued since these were intended for short term water quality characterization studies of the Pike Hill Mine. 
There is however another long term gauge on the upper Waits River http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?01139800 
You have some great background on the mines. Both the Ely and Pike Hill mine have been added to the superfund list in 2002 and 2004 respectively. (added these changes)

Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission
submitted by Sally Mansur Hull, planner

1.	On page 8, the last paragraph offers a description of Vermont’s watershed planning process that is not entirely accurate.  The Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission believes the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is failing to undertake its planning obligations adequately. Additionally, the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission believes ANR is misinterpreting federal law concerning water resources classification. (Subcommittee concurred with the CRJC Water Resources Committee that this concern is beyond the scope of the subcommittee’s plan)
2.	On page 11, there is mention of the fact that Vermont has the strictest standard for E. coli in the nation.  Unfortunately, the Agency does not have the resources to enforce the E. coli standards, do not enforce it in areas with consistent violations, nor do they do testing to identify sources of E. coli.  (added cautionary language)
3.	On page 30, the word “leaking” is misspelled in front of “underground storage tanks.” (Corrected, thank you)
4.	Generally, on the subject of groundwater contamination, I recommend against reliance on DEC data from their hazardous sites list.  This list is very old and can be out of date in places, as shown above.  (agreed; revised reference to be more general, noting that dated information on the web should be verified and updated)
5.	On page 43, you could include mention of the fact that TRORC has also done a bridge and culvert survey (and Phase 1 and 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessments) in the Blood Brook watershed in Norwich.(duly noted)
6.	Page 48 discusses water quality issues relating to farms and cultivated landscapes.  This section of the plan should describe Vermont’s Accepted Agricultural Practices Regulations that mandate maintenance of vegetative buffer strips between cropland and adjoining surface waters. (added language for both states)
7.	Pages 49 and 50 discuss forests and rivers.  I recommend adding a sentence about the use of Acceptable Management Practices by people engaged in logging to protect water quality in rivers and streams. (added reference)  In addition, the concept that dioxins are produced by waste incineration does not seem to fit with this section. (decided to leave in discussion of various sources of dioxins) Last, the discussion of acid deposition could use one or two more sentences to link this issue better to conditions in the Connecticut River watershed. (added language )
8.	The definition of Brownfields on page 51 should be reworded as “…due to the potential or perceived presence of hazardous substances or other pollutants.”  (duly noted) The last sentence in the first paragraph of that section mentions a list of area Brownfields and other hazardous waste sites. Vermont DEC does not maintain a list of Brownfields sites, although their active hazardous sites list can be a source of information about potential Brownfields.  This is an important distinction! The second paragraph lists the location of the Tip Top Tire site incorrectly – it is located in Wilder, Vermont.  The Thetford Town Garage is no longer an active Brownfields site. (edited references)
9.	In the last paragraph, you may want to mention that TRORC has won four grants from EPA since 2003 to inventory Brownfields sites and conduct environmental assessments.  In May of this year, we were awarded another $200,000 to address petroleum sites in the region. Under recommendations for this section, the report could recommend that municipalities and developers of potential Brownfields sites contact TRORC regarding environmental site assessments. (added recommendation)
10.	On page 55, under the discussion of Fluvial Erosion Hazard mapping, the plan could mention that this (mapping) work is ongoing in both the Ompompanoosuc River and Blood Brook watersheds.(added language)
11.	On page 58, under the list of regulatory measures provided, the paragraph on Floodplain Ordinances should state that Vermont towns should update their floodplain ordinances, incorporating them into town zoning bylaws where possible. Later in that same section, the plan should state that there are several ways that towns can implement fluvial erosion hazard overlay zones.  Education of property owners is a less intensive way to implement these zones, and incorporating the zones into town zoning bylaws is the ideal way to go about this.(added language)

Connecticut River Watershed Council
submitted by David Deen, Upper River Steward

1.	The difference between the headings environmental agencies, DES and DEC should be made clear. (edited)
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. (Subcommittee explored this idea, and decided not to go further, due to NH budget realities)
4.	New Hampshire should pass legislation banning the use of phosphorous in dishwashing and laundry detergents, as Vermont has. (agreed to add recommendation)
5.	Farm riparian buffers are required in Vermont at 10 feet and should be adopted in New Hampshire. (added language)
6.	Water quality sampling should include sampling for chemical contamination – monitor for endocrine disrupters and other drugs.(Subcommittee agreed that due to the extreme cost of sampling for pharmaceuticals, education is a more cost-effective approach.)
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. (decided to recommend that this issue be raised when permits come up for renewal)
8.	Enforcement in both states should not just be recommendations and permits that are out of compliance with the law should not be issued.  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 whether it’s a water quality, flood plain development of shoreland protect violation, etc.(Subcommittee notes that the plan does call for enforcement, but feels that the suggested volunteer compliance monitoring goes further than is appropriate for the subcommittee’s role)
9.	The plan should call for federal and state agencies to schedule another fish tissue sampling starting now. (agreed should tie plans for a new study with recommendations in the original one)
10.	The plan should call on the Vermont legislature to create water withdrawal registration. (the plan already recommends this)

Thetford Planning Commission 
submitted by Stuart Blood
Thetford adopted a town plan in 2007. (updated chart)

Caryl Collier, Hanover representative
research 1) What is it about watercraft that determines the size, height & speed of the wave? Research 2) how to create a licensing system to encourage low or non wave generating craft vs those that "make waves"???
(will add results from boat hull study in Alaska)

John Severance, Connecticut River Commissioner

1.	Not sure where this would fit in, but inclusion of the ‘best colonies in America of dwarf wedge mussels’ are in this subcommittee’s area and Ethan Nedeau work references would seem appropriate.(added language)
2.	Page 20- last line on page- general comment: ‘are now too crowded to accomplish this’, has a bit of a defeatist tone but that is outweighed by the facts and real-world situation recognized by the CRJC and subcommittees.
3.	Page 23- last bullet item: (about undersized culvert assessments), might add something about develop a simple method to calculate/determine this in chart or graph form.  (Subcommittee felt that this recommendation was too technical to include in the draft)
4.	Page 25- under Wilder Dam impoundment- (middle of page) ‘phenomenon known as pond tilt- might be good to describe this term. (added language)
5.	Page 28- first bullet on this page- should add ‘County Conservation districts and others should investigate’ (there may be local town concom’s, regional commissions, etc. that could take this on. Perhaps even just plain locals who spend a lot of time on the river. (added language)
6.	Page 29- Recommendations for water withdrawals, second bullet:  ‘whether the 20,000 gallon threshold’ might want to add in 20,000 gallon per day.(added language)
7.	Page 32- 3. Protecting drinking water supplies, second paragraph, ‘protective radius around their wells (75-400’)’- should include radius or plume. (added language). 
8.	Page 39- 2. Shoreline & Floodplain Development, second paragraph, 4th line, ‘eliminating wildlife habitat’ might want to add in blocks (or interrupts) wildlife travel corridors.(added language)
9.	Page 40- Vermont Shoreland Protection, 2nd paragraph, next to last line, ‘ a building setback that reflects local soil conditions’, might want to add in  and slope (as it directly relates to some soil problems) (added language)
10.	Page 41- Floodplain maps,  It is very true that these maps need to be done and as soon as possible; ought to include accurate slope/topo/river gradient drop as well as elevation for floodplain determination. A great start for this might be the many USGS geodetic discs around the area and perhaps dam elevations. Might be able to incorporate LIDAR type flights and vertical GPS points collected. Many towns have done new flights in recent times for tax mapping and some have included 2’ contour intervals. Seems like there must be enough data out there to get this going with the opportunity to fill in gaps fairly inexpensively with modern GPS receivers. (Subcommittee felt that this was too detailed a recommendation to include)
11.	Page 42- middle of the page, just above Recommendations for shoreland and floodplain development, These varve maps could also be a source of more accurate elevation data and include a floodplain line on them.  (Subcommittee felt that this was too detailed a recommendation to include)
1.	
12.	Page 42- Recommendations for shoreland and floodplain development, first two or three bullets,  All the tools currently exist to use the 2003 (or newer) DOQ aerial photography, snap a 250’ offset from the centerline of all rivers of interest (CT and trib’s),  further value- digitize existing vegetative buffers.  This would be very low cost and could be given to each town, NH and VT and could also be available on the GRANIT and VGIS? sites for download. Towns that had digitized parcels could overlay that layer for great overviews of the 250’ areas and review for planning/development. (further, slope can be added relatively easily also; as could floodplain elevations and varves) (Subcommittee felt that this was too detailed a recommendation to include)
13.	Page 43- Culverts and bridges, 3rd paragraph, same ideas with these nomo-graphs, charts, tables, graphs displaying culvert size based on slope and drainage area for culvert/bridges. A further step might be simple mapping of each drainage area which once done, could be referred to as development occurs or is proposed. These tools belong in the hands of the DPW folk who deal with this stuff on a daily basis. (Subcommittee felt that this was too detailed a recommendation to include)
14.	Page 45- top of the page, Railroad, Seek a native species for vegetative cover that grows thick with an extensive root system that does not grow tall. Could be mowed (bush-hogged) at around the 1-2 foot high level once every 5-10 years as needed. The 1-2 foot height would keep mower out of rocks and other debris cutting down on breakdowns and maintenance of equipment.(added language)
15.	Page 46- Bottom of page, could add in mitigation wetlands or buffers and perhaps the creation of vernal pools in swales or catch areas. Incentive would be some sort of credits toward acceptance or approval.  (state program for this has been initiated)
16.	Page 48- top of page, 2nd paragraph, Though perhaps not for incorporation in this document, results of this Community Services study reflecting costs and longterm value of land ‘not developed’ seem very related to the ACOE study finding that buyout of floodplain lands was not worth the value of benefit. (in the Riverbend chapter) Might be a good piece for argument in favor of reconsideration or review by the ACOE in the future.(will consider for Riverwide Overview)
17.	Page 50 seems to be missing (will supply)
18.	Page 53- next to the last paragraph near bottom of page, ‘river valley are non-cohesive and therefore’, might be plainer to reader(s) if further description of the soil read, are granular and non-cohesive…  (I believe that this is correct and seems to further point out the problem)  (added language)
19.	Page 56- third paragraph down, ‘Tree revetments have been successful…’  (added language)
20.	Page 57- 3rd bullet, USDA county conservation districts and others…  These locations ought to be GPS located (with a single point) and attribute data added (tree species, depth and size) and the data base made public in order that others may add to this documentation using proper methods and forms over time. It might also be of use to collect any invasive species (same would be true of rare or endangered species) encountered. (The invasives tend to grow in disturbed areas which fit the erosion locations as well).  (added language)
21.	Page 58- Floodplain Ordinances, 3rd line, ‘added benefit of protecting…’, might be a good chance to add in and would tend to maintain existing riparian buffers. (added language)
22.	Page 50- Education programs, statement about landowner permission; does this apply if you are in a canoe or kayak on the navigable water?? (no)