Responsiveness Summary 
Mt. Ascutney River Subcommittee Draft, Water Resources Chapter- 11/14/07

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

1.	An updated Economic Values Study has recently been released.(Reviewed and summarized findings in plan)
2.	On page 14- The actual average cost of maintaining one stream gage is approximately $12,000 per year. This cost includes gage calibration, equipment maintenance, data analysis, and data management. (noted in text)
3.	On page 15, a recommendation for gages states “NH DES and USGS should consider a new gage at Lake Sunapee as a lower priority, because information can be sought from the manager of the dam at the foot of the lake.” It may be helpful to note that a variety of water quality parameters can be collected in a scientific way, depending on the type of stream gage, which a manager of a dam would not be able to do on a consistent basis. (noted; Subcommittee still believes this site should not be a high priority)
4.	Page 16 - Souhegan River will be the first designated river to adopt a Protected Instream Flow (noted in text).
5.	An additional recommendation for flow and flood control to consider is increase the minimum design standards for bridge and culverts to bankfull width to reflect current climate research. (added this recommendation)
6.	It may be helpful to mention the NH DES Dam Removal and River Restoration Program under the section on tributary dams on page 22. (added reference to both states’ dam removal and river restoration programs)
7.	An additional recommendation that might be worth considering for groundwater found on page 27 is requiring an impervious surface cover limit on all residential and commercial lots. (added recommendation that all stormwater should be collected and treated on site, with extensive use of vegetation.)
8.	An additional recommendation that might be worth considering for landfills, junkyards, and transfer stations found on page 31 is establishing a regional “swap shop” for construction and demolition debris. The “swap shop” would recycle items that are no longer needed at sites and sell them for reuse.(added recommendation)
9.	An additional recommendation that may be worth considering for shoreland and floodplain development found on page 34 is encourage towns that are not signed up for the National Flood Insurance Program to do so. (Subcommittee declined to add, out of reluctance to encourage building in the floodplain)
10.	Some additional recommendations that may be worth considering for roads and railroads on page 36 are 1) including a reference to the NH Fish and Game Department’s Stream Crossing Guidelines, which provides culvert sizing requirements for fish passage and 2) increasing the culvert design requirements to reflect the new climate research done by Michael Simpson. (added references)
11.	An additional recommendation that may be worth considering for forests on page 39 is to encourage forest landowners to place easements on their lands or put their land in current use, if they have not already done so. (Subcommittee declined to add this recommendation)

Black River Action Team
submitted by Kelly Stettner

1.	Would it be too much trouble (or irrelevant) to insert some of the main tributaries into the map on page 2? (They will appear on the final maps in the published plan)
2.	In the Highlights section, I like the careful use of the "should" and "suggest" and "promote". Keeps the tension of regulation to a minimum.  I would, however, suggest that terms are defined at the beginning of the document, or at least the first time they are used. Maybe even find an alternative layperson-friendly term. I don't know anyone outside the ecology world who knows what "riparian" means or even "watershed," let alone "varve.” (There is a list of acronyms in an appendix. Have added text to explain these three words.)

Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission 
submitted by Cyndy Kozara, Regional Planner 

1.	I talked to Don Howard, Windsor Town Administrator about the two Mill Brook dams. The upper one is intact and is at Kennedy Pond. The lower one is partially breached and doesn’t hold much water back, and yes, it was a former hydro site. (clarified in text)

2.	As for what happens to the ash from Wheelabrator I called the NH Solid Waste Project in Claremont and was told that it gets shipped to an ash landfill in Shrewsbury, MA now. (Newport, NH ash landfill is capped and closed.) (Clarified in text)

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

1.	New Hampshire should pass legislation banning the use of phosphorous in dishwashing and laundry detergents, as Vermont has. (Subcommittee agreed this is a good idea, although was unaware of Vermont’s action and saw no evidence in stores that there are limits on products for sale). 
2.	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,) 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 or shoreland violation, etc.(Subcommittee is concerned about taking on a potentially confrontational role, and notes that CRJC does not have regulatory or enforcement authority. As with Hartland sand/gravel pit, can report observations to those whose role it is to follow up.)
3.	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 believes that the plan already addresses riparian buffer advantages for shading, and that thermal discharges are already regulated.)
4.	The plan should call for federal and state agencies to schedule another fish tissue sampling starting now. (Subcommittee concurs with Water Resources Committee recommendation, to consider going back every so often to track progress, such as every 5-10 years, but not recommend a follow up study just for the sake of another study.)
5.	CRJC should review and monitor the management, expansion and construction of electric transmission lines, especially in this reach of the river with the newly proposed expansion of the loop transmission line that is panned for VT stretching from Vernon to Cavendish and crossing 8 tributaries to the river.(Subcommittee does not anticipate major impacts on the Connecticut River from this project, and concurs with Water Resources Committee recommendation to encourage vigilance on rail and utility spraying for vegetation maintenance, require no chemical treatments where lines cross waterways, and encourage use of native groundcover that grows thick with an extensive root system but does not grow tall.)
6.	Water quality sampling should include sampling for chemical contamination – monitor for endocrine disrupters and other drugs. There is mention of drugs as an action that people should take in handling their own prescriptions but few people know that there is any kind of problem. Water quality tests that document the problem could have the same education value as has mercury sampling and education leading the heightened awareness of mercury in the environment. (Subcommittee is reluctant to make this recommendation due to the expense and complexity of such a sampling program).
7.	The plan should call on the Vermont legislature to create water withdrawal registration. (Plan already does).
8.	Farm riparian buffers are required in Vermont at 10 feet and should be adopted in New Hampshire.(Agreed, will add text).

Steve Walasewicz, Connecticut River Commissioner

1.	I’m curious as to why some of the quotes are quasi-anonymous, while the sources of only a few (3) are identified by name? I didn’t really like the quote on page 6, but that’s just my personal opinion.(added names except when quotes came from people outside the Subcommittee region)
2.	Page 6 – The CT River Byway is more than just an “economic development initiative,” as it is so-called. (modified text to include idea of heritage tourism)
3.	Page 10 (and throughout) - I would be careful using web links in a printed version, as they tend to change so frequently.(subcommittee agreed but decided to keep the links)
4.	Page 10, 2nd paragraph – Is stating that NH has designated the “entire” CT River as Class B confusing, or am I just splitting hairs? Makes me think of the CT & MA segments also. (added “in NH and VT.”)
5.	Page 11 – Water quality monitoring of BMD Brook at Saint-Gaudens NHS since 1997. (noted in text)
6.	Page 17 (ice discussion) – Should something be added here about CRREL and their ice research? (added text)
7.	Page 22 (tributary dams) – There is also an active hydro dam on the Black River in Cavendish, though I realize that is not a riverfront town. (added reference in text) The 3rd paragraph of this tributary dam section feels like it comes very out-of-the-blue: “The dam at Halls Pond in Charlestown has been repaired.” An introductory sentence would likely help. (added text)
8.	Page 23 (recommendations) – In my opinion, “ramping rates” is not common enough to use without providing the definition. Why is only Army Corps the only federal agency recommended to possibly acquire Sumner Falls parcel? What about Conte, it’s part of the macrosite? (Subcommittee believes that the property requires active management, especially in the future as use continues to increase, and that the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not in a position to supply this management)
9.	Page 25 (groundwater contamination in Weathersfield) – This is a question, rather than a comment: where did we get the information regarding the elementary school? I’m assuming that this is the Elementary School in Perkinsville and not the Middle School in Ascutney? (Information came from web listing on VT DEC web site; references will be removed following recommendation of CRJC Water Resources Committee)
10.	Page 26 (protecting drinking water supplies) – Weathersfield has a couple of defined wellhead protection areas including a privately owned community water supply system in Ascutney. (noted in text)
11.	Page 27 (recommendations) – Second bullet regarding Vermont, suggest replacing “needs” with “should.”(made change in text)
12.	Page 28 (Table 4) – Why is no condition of discharge included for Claremont? (Added)
13.	Page 29 (industrial discharges) – The former Ben & Jerry’s plant (and then some other company afterward) in North Springfield is no longer an ice cream plant. (plant is now empty and waiting for a buyer; but effluent would be treated as described)
14.	Page 29 (recommendations) – Why is Springfield singled out by name for CSOs? (It is the only town in the region with CSOs; revised text)
15.	Page 30 (Claremont ash landfill) – rather than use the term “pick up,” consider replacing with “detect.” Pick up, to me, infers collecting. (changed text) If the ash landfill is capped, where is the ash still being produced by Wheelabrator now going?( It is shipped to an ash landfill in Shrewsbury, MA; noted in text) 
16.	Page 30 (recommendations) – Why don’t we recommend a bottle bill in NH to reduce littering of cans & bottles? (Subcommittee considers politically inexpedient) We could also consider recommending seeking alternatives to landfills, such as composting facilities like those developed by Bedminster (). 
17.	Page 33 – There is a bit of a mixed message regarding TransCanada. The document states how they are expected to be good stewards and then, in the next sentence, states that we need to be vigilant for them building a gas pipeline at Herrick’s Cove.(subcommittee decided to eliminate reference to earlier pipeline project).
18.	Page 34 (recommendations) – Should we say something here about the 500-year floodplain? (Subcommittee decided against this)
19.	Page 34 (road and railroad) – Not sure that the term “ancient” routes works when the reference is to two centuries, especially since a glacial lake was discussed on the preceding page.(deleted word)
20.	Pages 35 - 36  - Note something in the text or recommendations about the UNH Roads Scholar program? (Added reference to both this and Vermont’s Better Back Roads program)
21.	Page 39 (airborne pollutants) – “Midwest power plants (corrected text)
22.	Page 42 – Horses are routinely seen in the CT River below the covered bridge in Cornish. (added reference) Also, I have a question about the “Weathersfield” pit just north of the Ascutney bridge, is this the gravel pit on the west side of Route 5? (The erosion survey cited here refers to two gravel pits along the river in this area, one in Weathersfield and the other in Hartland. “At both gravel pits along the river, a significant amount of depositional material has accumulated in the riverbend. Most especially this is true at the Weathersfield gravel pit, just north of the Ascutney Bridge. There is a very visible sand and gravel bar that has formed in mid-stream from this site south of the bridge. The middle of the river is inaccessible to motorized watercraft once the spring floodwaters subside.”)
23.	Page 43 (top of page) – Along with the several farm parcel that lack riparian buffers, the land that is owned by the NH Fish & Game Dept. north of the covered bridge lacks an adequate buffer and is leased for agricultural purposes. I’ve seen manure get washed into the river in the past. Should we tactfully recommend that the State of NH do a better job of managing this leased parcel? (Subcommittee agreed; NH Fish and Game was contacted and reference to this site was added to the text)
24.	Page 44 – Should “Federal” be included in the major headings under the “tools” for protection? There are the Clean Water Act, USDA (NRCS), USDI (Conte), EPA, USGS, Army Corps, etc. (this “tools” section is more oriented toward those available to local communities and citizens; a discussion of federal tools seemed less important here)
25.	Page 44 - (conservation purchase or easement) – “Individuals” should be added to the list of those that can use easements as a means of protection, not just towns and conservation groups. (individuals are not usually the easement holders who could enforce such measures)
26.	Page 45 (tributaries) – It’s “Okemo Mountain” rather than Mt. Okemo (changed text)
27.	Appendix E – Country Estates Water Supply in Ascutney should be added to the list. This source serves 60-something residents, at least that many mobile homes, as well as some commercial interests and the Middle School. I’m not sure if the name of the water supply is exactly correct. (The list that appears in this appendix is for NH withdrawals only; this is the only information available. However, noted in the text).

CRJC Water Resources Committee
1.	Fish tissue sampling: CRJC should participate in design of future studies. Should consider recommending going back every so often to track progress, such as every 5-10 years, but not recommend a follow up study just for the sake of another study. (Subcommittee agrees, added text).
2.	Groundwater: mention MtBE as an example of how groundwater can be threatened, and be clear that the substance is now banned. Should treat some subjects, such as brownfields and hazardous sites, more lightly, recognizing them as an issue and identifying who’s dealing with it, and giving general comments.(Subcommittee agrees, altered text)
3.	RR/Utilities: encourage vigilance on rail and utility spraying for vegetation maintenance. Find out what herbicides are being used near water. Could require no chemical treatments where lines cross waterways. Encourage use of native groundcover that grows thick with an extensive root system but does not grow tall.(Subcommittee agrees, added text)
4.	Stormwater: compare VT and NH approach to stormwater management and regulation. VT has a statewide limit; NH limits only on shorelands; otherwise limits are locally imposed.  Use general description of low impact development techniques. Don’t get too specific; give references and work with RPCs. (Subcommittee agrees, added text)
5.	Pharmaceuticals:  Get FDA involved with pharmaceuticals, not just EPA. Hospital associations should encourage return of unused pharmaceuticals and large pharmacies should accept them.(Subcommittee agrees, added text)