The Pemigewasset River Corridor Management Plan (PRCMP): Update

Transcription

1 The Pemigewasset River Corridor Management Plan (PRCMP): Update Kick-Off meetings September 27 and 29, 2011 Plymouth State University, Plymouth and Gordon-Nash Library, New Hampton Designated River Corridors Pemigewasset River Local Advisory Committee River Corridor Management Plan & Update Purpose Process Status Timeline Opportunities

2 Designation of the Pemi River Corridor Rivers Management and Protection Program, RSA 483 Complement and reinforce existing state and federal laws Maintain in-stream flows Restore and maintain scenic beauty and recreational potential Protection measures based on classification of the river segment documents/rl-14.pdf Dams, Waste disposal, fertilizers, pesticides & herbicides, buildings, buffers Respect riparian interests Does not preempt local zoning Pemigewasset River was designated in The Pemigewasset River Local Advisory Committee (PRLAC) RSA 483:8a Local representatives Activities Advise NH DES and communities on matters pertaining to management of the river Comment on federal, state, or municipal plans to approve, fund, or construct facilities that would alter the resource values and characteristics of the river PRLAC also reviews and comments on private development activities within 250 of the river as specified in the CSPA/SWQPA Develop a Corridor Management Plan Work with communities to implement the recommendations of the Plan Water Quality monitoring Education and training Advocate on river corridor issues

3 Purpose Purpose of the River Corridor Management Plan Guidance document The 2001 Pemi Corridor Management Plan Identifies resources Identifies existing and potential threats or challenges Identifies existing protections Makes recommendations Process Seek public input and participation. Public Survey Webpage under development for better communication Meetings PRLAC Last Tuesday of the month at 7:00 PM in PSU s Boyd Hall Room 001 Several more public meetings will be scheduled and announced especially regarding Problem Identification and Recommendations Public review and comment period

4 Process (continued) Review the 2001 Plan and update the information. The Plan shall address: Permitted recreational uses and activities Permitted non-recreational uses and activities Existing land uses Protection floodplains, wetlands, wildlife & fish habitat, open space & natural areas Dams and bridges Pedestrian and vehicle access Setbacks Dredging, filling, mining, and earth moving Prohibited uses Numerous other resources identified in 2001 Plan Other applicable federal, state, or local regulations Process (continued) Identify Present and Anticipated Problems In 2001 these included: Water Quality Development and Growth Trash Disposal Flow-related Issues Public Use Recreation For , 12, this list will likely be modified, including Changes to the Shoreland Protection Act (2008 CSPA & 2011 SWQPA) Invasive species

5 Process (continued) Develop Recommendations Action statements to address each of the Present and Anticipated Problems Will include details about how each recommendation might be implemented Publish Updated Plan After a public review and comment period, the Plan will be revised and published. Status (September 2011) Conducted a River Corridor Survey (fall 2010) 171 people responded. One-third of the respondents said they use the river at least 12 times per year. The three most important objectives selected were protecting water quality, protecting aquifers (drinking water), and protecting scenic beauty. The potential threats that were of the greatest concern) included d failing septic systems, the use of pesticides and herbicides near the water, erosion from m development activities, and increased polluted runoff from impervious surfaces such as roads, r parking lots, and roofs. a majority of the survey respondents expressed full support for prohibiting the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides within 50 of any surface water, ensuring the protection of natural resource areas identified as important for watershed health, more stringent regulations of development on steep slopes, and requiring ing a vegetated buffer on larger tributaries to the Pemi. Complete results are at Expanded our mailing list. Drafted a webpage Kick Off meetings Updating Demographics and Land Use

6 Timeline Review the 2001 Plan and update information - December 2011 Identify the Present and Anticipated Problems March 2012 Develop Recommendations September 2012 Publish Updated Plan December 2012 Opportunities To provide input Survey Meetings Plan development and regular PRLAC Public review of the Plan Lend a hand Plan development discussions Outreach build local awareness

7 For more information: Max Stamp, PRLAC Chair David Jeffers, Lakes Region Planning Commission or Tara Bamford, North Country Council or