New Hampshire Could Lose $51 Million Should Perception of Water Clarity of Lakes and Rivers Decline

NHRC in conjunction with the Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Ponds Partnership has released the latest economic impact study:

The Economic Impact Of Potential Decline in New Hampshire Water Quality: The Link between Visitor Perceptions, Usage and Spending, 2007; Nordstrom. Click here to download the PDF

The study released finds that residents and visitors who fish, boat and swim the state’s freshwater lakes and rivers would decrease their use—and their spending—if they perceive deterioration in any of four key areas: water clarity and purity; natural views and scenery; crowding; and water levels and flows. The study further analyzes the spending and potential loss of revenue for each of the state’s seven tourism regions.

Based on the users’ reports of their spending and how that would change if the lakes and rivers were degraded, a decrease in water clarity and purity would result in a $51 million annual loss for the state. Changes in water levels or flows would cost the state $29 million; changes in the natural views or scenery would decrease spending by almost $28 million, and increased crowding could cost $19 million.

For more information please contact us.

House Bill 383 Testimony: Supporting Designation of Waterfront Buffers

The Rivers Council advocates for strong public policies and wise management of New Hampshire river resources. Below is testimony given to the Energy, Environment and Economic Development Committee regarding House Bill 383. This legislation would help the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act meet its intent of clean and healthy waters and shorelines through the designation of waterfront buffers. For more information please contact us.

May 26, 2007

The Honorable Martha Fuller Clark, Chair
Energy, Environment and Economic Development Committee
Legislative Office Building, Room 102
Concord, NH 03301

Re: HB 383, An Act relative to waterfront buffer and woodland buffer requirements in the comprehensive shoreland protection act.

Dear Senator Clark and members of the Committee:

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on HB 383. The New Hampshire Rivers Council is a non-profit conservation organization dedicated to healthy rivers and river systems throughout the state. We represent a wide range of individuals, from fishermen and paddlers to farmers and businesses that care about rivers.

Our rivers and lakes are the lifeblood of New Hampshire, and HB 383 is just one of four bills currently under consideration that aim to improve protections for rivers and lakes. The goal of HB 383 is to fix portions of RSA 483, the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA) that have failed or been insufficient to provide adequate surface water protection. Its goal, along with those of HB 663, HB 665 and HB 857, is simply to help the CSPA meet its intent of clean and healthy waters and shorelines.

Research has clearly shown that land bordering water bodies is critical for water quality protection. In fact, a widely respected study of buffers along water bodies in New Hampshire (Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters: A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities, Chase, Deming and Latawiec, 1995) recommended a minimum 100 foot buffer (defined as a naturally vegetated and undisturbed upland area adjacent to a wetland or surface water) for water quality protection, with larger buffers needed in some cases for habitat protection.

We think HB 383 and the other shoreland protection bills begin to strike a much needed balance between the rights and desires of property owners and the needs of our public waters.

HB 383 is the result of several levels of collaboration and stakeholder involvement in the evaluation of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act. The bill contains a portion of the recommendations of the SB 83 commission to review the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, which included members from a wide range of interests, from development and real estate to conservation and agriculture.

That collaboration continued through deliberations in the House, and the current version of HB 383 represents compromises struck with both sides at the table. Undoubtedly no side is fully happy with the result, but that is the nature of compromise. The Rivers Council supports HB 383 despite areas of concern, and we urge you to approve it and the other Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act bills.

This bill proposes a substantially improved vegetated buffer mechanism that will be far simpler to comply with and easier to enforce. One of the greatest weaknesses of the current law is that the requirements for maintaining a vegetated buffer are complicated and require long-term and fairly detailed record keeping.

HB 383 replaces the current vegetated buffer with a simple 50 foot waterfront buffer in which the land must have a certain amount of vegetated cover before cutting or removal can occur. Within 150 feet of the shoreline, 50% of the vegetation outside of the allowed impervious surfaces must be left undisturbed.

We had requested an even simpler approach in which the 50 foot waterfront buffer would be a no cut zone and the remaining shoreland area would be limited only in impervious surfaces. Given the lack of staffing at the Department of Environmental Services, a significant portion of enforcement relies on reporting by abutters and other citizens. Though an improvement over the current law, even the mechanism proposed in the bill will be difficult to implement through abutters and public complaints. While we believe that our no cut proposal is the most effective way to protect our rivers and lakes, this is just one area on which we chose to compromise.

The bill also contains a limit on impervious surfaces to help control runoff pollution and facilitate groundwater recharge. Impervious surfaces have been an important factor responsible for recent flooding, and one of the most effective fixes for flooding is limits to impervious surfaces. Extensive research has demonstrated that impairments to surface waters are measurable at impervious coverage below 10%, and the state is currently developing a stormwater guidance document that sets out a watershed wide goal of a maximum of 10% impervious surfaces.

Given the proximity of the protected shoreland to water bodies, the Rivers Council proposed a 10% limit on impervious surfaces with an allowance to relax that to as high as 20% with improved buffers and onsite retention of all runoff. We have grave concerns about allowing greater than 20% impervious surfaces so close to our water bodies, and some research shows that such high impervious surface coverage can impair water to the extent it needs to be cleaned up at great public and private expense. We believe a 10% impervious limit is the only scientifically defensible restriction, and only support the current bill language if all other provisions are adopted unweakened.

Finally the study commission recommended that the 50 foot waterfront buffer allow for some cutting of trees and saplings but prevent removal of any groundcover under three feet tall. This recommendation would effectively prohibit ANY development of any kind in the waterfront buffer, including dug-in boathouses, perched beaches and the like. While we continue to believe that this is the best policy for rivers and lakes, we again chose not to oppose an exception to that provision in order to allow some modest development for such activities. This was yet another area where we compromised to find common ground.

We understand that the committee intends to amend HB 383 with language from HB 665 and HB 857. We support such a change but only to the extent language is adopted as passed by the House. We strongly support HB 665 and the changes that apply to rivers and would like to see all provisions implemented by January of 2009. Further delays (e.g. for 3rd order river protection) only serve to create a substantial development incentive on those rivers where protection is promised but delayed.

We did identify one problem with HB 383 and the study commission recommendations related to vegetation in the waterfront buffer which, until now we have not addressed for fear of raising further confusion. HB 383 contains no direction on what can be done regarding vegetation larger than three feet yet not considered saplings or trees (for example, many shrubs). We believe shrubs and similar vegetation can benefit the buffer value along rivers and lakes, and such vegetation should count toward the vegetated buffer requirements. However, we do not believe property owners should be allowed to cut all trees and replace them with shrubs, particularly exotics or invasives. In no case should those shrubs and similar vegetation be fertilized or sprayed.

We believe both sides have yielded sufficiently to reach the language passed by the House, and stand firm in our support of HB 383 in its current form. We urge you to keep in mind the delicate negotiations that have gotten us this far with much needed reforms of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, and pass HB 383 unchanged. We do not oppose technical changes needed to implement the spirit of the House compromise bill, and are not opposed to combining several of the CSPA bills, but we strongly request you not make substantive changes at this point without full involvement of the conservation community.

Thank you for considering our testimony.

Sincerely,

Carl Paulsen
Program Director