October 3July 24, 2006 RMAC Meeting
Draft Minutes 2
RIVERS MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
October 3, 2006
DES Rooms 112/113
9:30 am – 12:30 pm
Members Present Representing Term
Ken Kimball, Chair Recreational Interests Dec. 28, 2008 V
Michele L. Tremblay, Vice Chair Conservation Interests Dec. 28, 2008 V
Bob Beaurivage Public Water Suppliers Sept. 28, 2007 V
William Carpenter for Johanna Lyons Dept. Resources & Economic Development Indefinite NV
Jennifer Czysz NH Office of Energy and Planning Indefinite NV
William Heinz Granite State Hydropower Jan. 5, 2009 V
John Magee Fish & Game Department Indefinite NV
Walter Morse NH Fish & Game Commission Sept. 28, 2009 V
Members Absent
Ken Gallager Office of Energy and Planning Indefinite NV
Deborah Hinman NH Assn. Conservation Commissions Oct. 12, 2007 V
Gail McWilliam Jellie Dept. of Agriculture, Markets and Food Indefinite NV
Allan Palmer Business and Industry Association Sept. 28, 2007 V
Wesley Stinson Historical & Archaeological Interests June 15, 2007 V
Ted Sutton Municipal Government Nov. 16, 2008 V
Vacant Agricultural Interests March 22, 2006 V
Guests Present
Pat McCotter Essex Hydro
Tim Fortier McLane, Graf, Rauleson & Middleton, Law Firm
DES Staff Present
Steve Couture NHDES Rivers Coordinator
Laura Weit NHDES Lakes and Rivers Asst. Planner
Wayne Ives NHDES Watershed MgmtManagement Bureau
Marie Loskamp NHDES Watershed Management Bureau, Executive Secretary
The Meeting Was Called to Order
Michele Tremblay, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:40 AM.
I. 9:40 – 9:45 Introductions/Minutes/Committee Business
1) July 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes - Vote Required
Ø William Heinz made a motion to accept the July 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes, Walter Morse seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous with the inclusion of Ken Kimball’s editorial comments which are not substantive. The vote was unanimous.
Nomination to the Souhegan River and Lamprey River Instream Flow Technical Committee – Vote Required
Ø Motion made by Ken Kimball, seconded by Bob Beaurivage to accept nomination for John Magee to replace Bill Ingham on the Souhegan River and Lamprey River Instream Flow Technical Review Committees, Vote was unanimous by those present. Debby Hinman voted by proxy.
32) RMAC Membership Status
a) Allen Bartlett – The NE Organic Farmers Association has finally submitted its nomination for the agricultural interest representative on the RMAC. of Alalen Bartlett was chosen by the Governor’s Office to represent that interest and histhe appointment was put on the G&C aAgenda. It He should be confirmed in time for our next meeting.
b) Mr. Morse - His term expired in September, it was incorrect on-line.. The Governor’s office called Mr. Morse and asked him to submit for a letter from F&G and hisanother resume to be sent to the Governor’s Office by October 6th.
c) Jennifer Czysz is the nNew NH Office of Energy and Planning rRepresentativedesignee is here today, Jennifer Czysz.
43) Correspondence
a) None
II. 9:45 – 10:00 Ammonoosuc River Nomination – Steve Couture, NHDES
1) RMAC, Rivers Coordinator, and Commissioner - letters of recommendation
Steve issued a memo to Commissioner Nolin supporting the nomination of the Ammonoosuc River. The Commissioner issued a letter to the NH House of Representatives and the Senate supporting the nomination. A Press Release was issued stating the RMAC’s support and it was also included in the DES Environmental News.
2) October 2, 2006 Press Event
AYesterday held a pPress eEvent was held in Littleton on October 2, 2006 where Ray Burton expressed his support for the Ammonoosuc River Nominationand a press release was issued.
3) Legislative support
Steve contacted Rep. Remick of Lancaster was contacted and Steve asked him on behalf of DES to put in a placeholder for the Ammonoosuc Nomination. The LSR is already on boardhas been submitted.
III. 10:00 – 10:30 Stream Gage Task Force (SGTF) – Ken Kimball, RMAC & Wayne Ives, NHDES
1) SGTF Report and and
2) Submission of Report to Legislature
Update: Wayne Ives – The RMAC made a resolution last year to convene a Stream gage Task Force and the Commissioner approved it on 2/1/06. S and stakeholders were recruited to serve on the convened in the SGTF;. Mmeetings were held in May, June and August. The SGTF took information we had and refined it. A report was ready for the due date of Sept. 15th. The existing gages were assessed as to what gages supported current uses and where new gages were needed. There were four categories using existing data; from web site as real time data and archived data. The team used USGS continuous gages were used for assessments. The report was finalized on Sept. 15th.
The Task ForceSGTF SGTF asked what people’s needs were that were not being addressed and to rank these needs between 1 and 10.
We identified gaps in the stream flow gaging network. There were no partial record gages recommended; , they were all were permanent gages with a few temporary gages. Wayne went over the spreadsheet on these. The top ranking needs represented the consensus of the group. There was a 50/50 split between watersheds that do have a gage and those that do not have a gage. All the existing gages have enough support to maintain them. Seventeen We need to add gages need to be added to the in 17 HUC-10 watersheds and a develop a funding mechanism needs to be developed to implement this network. The Commissioner sent the results to the Senate Bill 162 committee. The SB162 chairman was Senator Green, but he is not running again. The RMAC needs to articulate and quantify the requested actions and track the progress of any associated legislation. We need to influence people to support this in the legislature.
AThere is a web page foron the SGTF was created and that should be ready in a day or so. There is a long term effort that is needed here and there is some support. Wayne will notify the RMAC when it this web page goes on- line.
The SB162 committee’s chairman was Senator Greene but he is not running again. This is just a study committee. The RMAC needs to articulate and quantify the requested actions for stream gaging for this committee’s action and legislation.
Paul Currier suggested that funding for stream gaging should begin first round here with the capital budget. The capital budget hearings are scheduled to start in November. and then hold hearings lateron that. Steve can inform the RMAC if the budget was approved.let know if it is going to go through or not for our capital budget.
Actions requested by Ken Kimball:
Ø RMAC action is needed to keep up on top of this and make comments and recommendations as needed. We will be in the same boat if we don’t have funds to run gages either by federal or state government.
Ø Steve will keep the RMAC informed as to when the SB162 committee will meet and how funding will be securedwill they tie into funding source.
Ø Paul Currier will to pullt together the amount of capital needed capital required to run gages and how that figure it compares weighs in with the budget and annual cost using state personnel costs
Suggestions:
The Committee suggestedalso looking into to tie into some kind of permit process to bring in revenue to fund new gages. that DES already has in place. With withdrawal notification, permit by notification, but they are not paying for it yet. A minimal fee could bring in revenue. stabilize the funding for the existing and future steam gage network.
There is a potential to tapie into with the national weather forecast, since this is a safety issues for gages.
Virginia partnered with State, they use USGS protocols but use state staff, some advantages to that for DES gages. Gov. is looking at contract costs as opposed to hiring outside help.
We need a Recommendation is for a permanent source of funding, since as we the stream gage network needs to be need to stabilized the gage network.
There is also the possibility of seeking something more permanent with a federal earmark.Look into the earmark situation to find something more permanent possibly with federal dollars.federal agency, line item with a zero balance, earmark program line item to get capitol.
If we can get information question to committee, how do we want to deal with it? Have a subgroup as a subcommittee.
Ø Subcommittee to consist of Ken Kimball, Wayne Ives, and Steve Couture. Also need, Ted Sutton, Bill Heinz and Allan Palmer on Committee. Steve will contact Ted, Bill and Allan to work on the subcommittee.
IV. 10:30-11:30 Legislation/Rulemaking/Other
1) Legislation
a) Shoreland Protection Act Commission – Ken Kimball, RMAC & Darlene Forst, NHDES
Ken addressed the Commission on August 14, 2006 talked with the task force. One of the iIssues isare the order of streams that are coveredorder of streams. as n Not all fourth order streams are covered under the Act. Also, - two designated rivers Two of the streams are not even covered by Shoreland, the Saco and the Pemi are not covered. Another issue is calculating The basal area, which is confusing to left confusion to landowners and enforcement alike. The Commission re was discussedion on funding and/or permitting recommendations.
Steve sat in for attended the Rene Pelletier, as a voting member, at the September Commission following meeting.follow-up meeting with the task force on behalf of Ken and the RMAC The Commission made several motions, all relative to stream issues. The and also attended the steering committee meeting on behalf of R. Pelletier, which was stream related. Anything the RMAC thought was high priority they voted on. F first was to use a more accurate data set, the NH Hydrologic Database, and include all third order streams and higher, thus doubling the amount of mileage that is covered. The second was to include both the Saco and Pemi under the Act. The third was to establish a 50 foot setback for primary structures in all towns, no exceptions.order was doubling the amount of mileage that is covered and meeting it more accurately with better data set, the vote was unanimous as was the exemption for the Pemi and Saco. It doesn’t make any sense at all as the rest of designated stretch unanimous to remove exemption. Repeal exemption for setbacks less than 50 feet, no exemption, it should be repealed, vote was unanimous. Then we got to number 4 why not move to 3rd order streams, basically political decision, 13 in favor and 2 opposed. Disappointment that entire study committee couldn’t come to an agreement.
A final report will be submitted to the legislature by the end of November. The report will include all the above recommendations. ll items will be in final report with their recommendations, change of methodology. RMAC and River’s Council put in their recommendations, study committee came forward. Less than 50 miles not covered if just up to 3rd order. When goes to committee someone from Exeter LAC to go forth. It will come out in bill this session. They still want to look at the changing of the basal area, no cut still in discussion. The recommendation is to move forward as a piece of legislation. Don’t know how it will shake out. The deadline is coming up. Incumbents can start filing after Nov.18 to Dec. 18. Senate has until end of Jan. LACs on the Pemi should contact their senators and representatives so they know about it. Rep. Currier is the chair, RMAC encouraging legislators to work on this.
Ø Michele Tremblay will work with Steve Couture and Debby. Hinman , who is an LAC member, to track progresshelp, Wes. Stinson will help follow up with lLegislators and, draft a letter to put in front of the RMAC to submit to the legislature. Steve will take the letter and follow up with his contacts.
b) Grandfathered RMPP Sites & Residuals
SB-422 - Rep. Babson is the primary sponsor. The initial process started in 1998 and and was continued in 2003 & 2005, since. Tthe exemption for existing sites expires in July 2007. The exemption for existing sites expires in July 2007. SB-422 - Rep. Babson primary sponsor, only thing is the grandfathered sites, trying to address grandfathered sites. The study commission is considering removing the date or renewing it every 2 years. The RMAC has been supportive of continued grandfathering and should take a lead on this and do what’s best for rivers.RMAC’s standpoint is to make recommendation, because study commission didn’t work, for something that is renewable. Started back in 1998 with the initial process and in 2005 continued. The RMAC will make our response. RMAC always in reactive mode, the RMAC needs to take the lead as to what is best for Rivers and put it forth. The RMAC should be totally reactive to this one. RMAC has history with this topic, has been supportive of continuing grandfathered sites, subcommittee was to sort it out and they didn’t.
Suggestions:
Permit with a permit
They would have to stay up in BMP.
We are supportive of removing expiration date, but do we want to hold back and make them come forward with a renewal process?
Legislation removing expiration dates and using BMP
At the time the Pemi and the CT were supportive of this but the Pemi may have changed its mind.
Expiration date of April 2011 but the law supercedes that and it expires on July 2007. Grandfathered but when their permits come through emphasis on using BMP.