A wetlands buffer bill that could impact North Country wetlands, development projects, and towns went to a public hearing Wednesday at the New Hampshire statehouse and had most people who testified speaking against it, with some arguing it would override local control and degrade the state’s water resources.
House Bill 592, sponsored by state Rep. James Horgan, R-Farmington, seeks to amend the state’s existing wetlands statute by adding language to exempt temporary impacts and small impervious surface impact projects from local overlay districts and permits for construction, excavation, or filling near wetlands.
Under the bill provisions — which would be added to RSA 482, New Hampshire’s wetlands statute — no additional local land use permits or overlay districts shall be required for projects with 3,000 square feet or less of permanent impervious impacts within 50 feet of a wetland, no additional local permits or overlay districts would be required or apply to a project with any permanent impacts beyond 50 feet from any wetland, and no additional local land use permits or overlay districts shall be required or apply to a project with any temporary impacts any distance from a wetland.
Permanent impervious impact is defined as an impact where vegetation or soil is disturbed and a permanent structure or impervious surface is in contact with the land, resulting in measurable changes to draining.
Temporary impact is defined as cut and fill that are restored to pre-construction contours after construction is complete.
During Wednesday’s hearing before the House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee, Horgan said that HB 592 basically allows property owners to use additional land within 50 feet of a wetland and that the bill was submitted by realtor and former Republican state Rep. Packy Campbell, of Rochester.
Campbell said different municipalities have different definitions of a wetland and also define the areas around their wetlands differently.
Campbell said that his point of view essentially is that in many towns trees can’t be cut in upland buffer zones, but they can be cut in wetlands, and the bill seeks to strike a balance between property rights and respecting wetlands.
At the state level, there is no wetlands setback, and towns should not impose greenbelt buffer zones, he said.
“This is a private property rights bill,” said Campbell. “All I’m asking is there be a threshold before additional conditional use permits come into play.”
Among others testifying was Darlene Forst, administrator for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services’ Wetlands Bureau, who said DES would like to state to the committee that HB 592 might not do exactly what it intends to do.
The bill would not allow a town to regulate projects that would still carry impacts, she said.
“For clarity, this is not a wetlands issue and does not belong in the wetlands statute,” said Forst.
Rather, HB 592 should be in planning and zoning statutes, she said.
Speaking against the bill were heads of several groups that represent interests in the North Country, among them Margaret Burns, executive director of the New Hampshire Municipal Association.
“Our main reason for this opposition is it would override local control,” said Forst.
Wetlands also preserve water quality and wildlife, she said, adding that other concerns include cumulative impacts to wetlands over time and impacts on natural resources.
“We recommend this bill as inexpedient to legislate,” said Burns. “We ask the committee to recognize local control.”
Also opposed is Barbara Richter, executive director of the New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions, who said the association’s concerns are that that HB 592 is unclear, supersedes municipal rights, and doesn’t address remediation of a wetlands area or the small, cumulative impacts of projects.
Currently, New Hampshire loses some 90 acres of wetlands annually, resulting in loss of water quality and negative impacts that include less water filtration and floodwater storage, she said.
“70 percent of local towns have wetlands regulations,” said Richter.
Likewise opposed is Carol Foss, senior advisor for science and policy with the New Hampshire Audubon, who said small impacts to wetlands buffers can have large impacts downstream and temporary impacts to buffers can have long-term consequences.
HB 592 next goes to an executive session on Feb. 8 before the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee.
According to the HB 592 methodology, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has stated that the bill would not affect permit requirements or the fees required by the state for wetlands impacts and would not affect the permit requirements or fees to which state agencies would be subject, with no impact on state revenues or expenditures and no impact on county revenues and expenditures.
According to the bill, there could, however, be an impact on local revenues and expenditures, although how much is undetermined because there is no way to predict the number of projects that might occur in a given municipality that would be exempt from local permitting requirements.
Post a comment as anonymous
Report
Watch this discussion.
(1) comment
This quote from Barbara Richter of NHACC should be troubling to all in NH:
"Currently, New Hampshire loses some 90 acres of wetlands annually, resulting in loss of water quality and negative impacts that include less water filtration and floodwater storage, she said."
Keep in mind, too, that Casella's first "concept" for their proposed landfill on RT116, next to Forest Lake and the Ammonoosuc River called for nearly half of that annual loss of wetlands in NH, with approximately 42 acres of wetlands destruction and a 238-acre landfill footprint. In other words, with 1889 acres of Mr. Ingerson's land under contract, once Casella gets a foot in the door, future expansion plans will realize that 42 acres of wetlands destruction, if not more. This is a dangerous industrial development that will be in operation for generations, impacting Forest Lake and the Ammonoosuc River, upstream of Littleton. Wake up, folks! This fight to save the North Country from a business development that is greatly INCONSISTENT with the cute, quaint, small-town feel that Littleton has worked so hard to develop on Main Street and along the riverfront, and is equally INCONSISTENT with the invaluable tourism and outdoor recreation industries that are key economic drivers for the North Country and New Hampshire. Casella MUST BE STOPPED!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.