Kirt Mayland
02-27-2008, 04:09 PM
To the Forum:
A number of angling groups (like FRAA, HFFA, Salmon River Anglers, etc.), along with many state and national conservation groups (Audubon, TNC, Rivers Alliance, etc.) are supporting a bill in the CT legislature this year that would create a 100-foot protection area around all rivers in the state (similar to what many other states in the region now do). I sent this "action alert" to the TU Council this afternoon and wanted to put it on this site, in case any of the forum members wanted to get involved (please do, we need all the help we can get on this). So here goes, and feel free to post up and write with any ?s or concerns:
It appears that the Environment Committee could vote on An Act Concerning Riverfront Protection as early as this Friday.
Firstly, and most importantly, please forward this e-mail to all chapter volunteers and other groups lists you may have.
Please e-mail your local legislator(s) and copy the co-chairs (Rep. Roy and Senator Meyer), the vice chairs, and the ranking members. That way everyone who ultimately makes the decision to pass or kill our bill on that committee knows how you feel. The Environment Committee membership list can be found here:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/MemberList.asp?comm_code=ENV&doc_type=
If you do not have a local legislator on the committee, please direct your e-mail to the others mentioned above.
We need to get a lot of e-mails out on this as the homebuilders association is going nuts over this bill and contacting everyone asking them to reject it.
In the e-mail, please (in the subject line) write: Support RB 362, An Act Concerning Riverfront Protection
After that, per usual, do as you please. This is an issue we all can relate to and I am sure many of you have our own stories. These are most effective. And please save your e-mail as you may want to re-use it again for another committee as this bill moves along.
As you know, the act
(which can be found here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/S/2008SB-00362-R00-SB.htm )
amends the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (the blue, underlined writing represents the new language) and basically establishes a 100 foot Riverfront Protection Area which essentially gives this riverfront area the same level of protection as a wetland or watercourse itself (e.g. the new language states that "no regulated activity shall be conducted upon any inland wetland or watercourse or riverfront area without a permit."). This new "riverfront area" is NOT an upland review area.
Here are some bullet points to use. I would just cut and paste the ones you want to use.
Rivers do not obey town boundaries and need a consistent level of statewide protection.
Adequate riverfront protection areas give the state healthy rivers, raising home values, and ensuring clean drinking water supplies.
Brook trout are the only native trout to the state and are an indicator of excellent water quality. The top threats to brook trout in the state are urbanization, road sediment and high water temperatures – all threats that proper riverfront protection areas would address.
Almost 75% of towns in the state have an upland review area of at least a 100 ft., many go further than a 100 ft. and therefore already recognize the importance of adequate buffers like this.
Buffers perform the following, important ecological functions:
Stabilize streambanks and prevent erosion
Protect floodplains and reduce flooding
Provide food, cover (shading) and habitat for stream and wetland life
Provide important habitat for reptiles, amphibians and birds
Manage and prevent stormwater runoff
A mandatory 100 foot riverfront protection area for the state’s stream is a simple, efficient and cost-effective manner for the state and towns to protect some of their most valuable water resources.
Many other states have more protective buffers (MA, for instance, has a 200-foot one) and the homebuilders and others have had little or no complaints in those states.
Thank you for your help with this.
Kirt Mayland
A number of angling groups (like FRAA, HFFA, Salmon River Anglers, etc.), along with many state and national conservation groups (Audubon, TNC, Rivers Alliance, etc.) are supporting a bill in the CT legislature this year that would create a 100-foot protection area around all rivers in the state (similar to what many other states in the region now do). I sent this "action alert" to the TU Council this afternoon and wanted to put it on this site, in case any of the forum members wanted to get involved (please do, we need all the help we can get on this). So here goes, and feel free to post up and write with any ?s or concerns:
It appears that the Environment Committee could vote on An Act Concerning Riverfront Protection as early as this Friday.
Firstly, and most importantly, please forward this e-mail to all chapter volunteers and other groups lists you may have.
Please e-mail your local legislator(s) and copy the co-chairs (Rep. Roy and Senator Meyer), the vice chairs, and the ranking members. That way everyone who ultimately makes the decision to pass or kill our bill on that committee knows how you feel. The Environment Committee membership list can be found here:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/MemberList.asp?comm_code=ENV&doc_type=
If you do not have a local legislator on the committee, please direct your e-mail to the others mentioned above.
We need to get a lot of e-mails out on this as the homebuilders association is going nuts over this bill and contacting everyone asking them to reject it.
In the e-mail, please (in the subject line) write: Support RB 362, An Act Concerning Riverfront Protection
After that, per usual, do as you please. This is an issue we all can relate to and I am sure many of you have our own stories. These are most effective. And please save your e-mail as you may want to re-use it again for another committee as this bill moves along.
As you know, the act
(which can be found here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/TOB/S/2008SB-00362-R00-SB.htm )
amends the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (the blue, underlined writing represents the new language) and basically establishes a 100 foot Riverfront Protection Area which essentially gives this riverfront area the same level of protection as a wetland or watercourse itself (e.g. the new language states that "no regulated activity shall be conducted upon any inland wetland or watercourse or riverfront area without a permit."). This new "riverfront area" is NOT an upland review area.
Here are some bullet points to use. I would just cut and paste the ones you want to use.
Rivers do not obey town boundaries and need a consistent level of statewide protection.
Adequate riverfront protection areas give the state healthy rivers, raising home values, and ensuring clean drinking water supplies.
Brook trout are the only native trout to the state and are an indicator of excellent water quality. The top threats to brook trout in the state are urbanization, road sediment and high water temperatures – all threats that proper riverfront protection areas would address.
Almost 75% of towns in the state have an upland review area of at least a 100 ft., many go further than a 100 ft. and therefore already recognize the importance of adequate buffers like this.
Buffers perform the following, important ecological functions:
Stabilize streambanks and prevent erosion
Protect floodplains and reduce flooding
Provide food, cover (shading) and habitat for stream and wetland life
Provide important habitat for reptiles, amphibians and birds
Manage and prevent stormwater runoff
A mandatory 100 foot riverfront protection area for the state’s stream is a simple, efficient and cost-effective manner for the state and towns to protect some of their most valuable water resources.
Many other states have more protective buffers (MA, for instance, has a 200-foot one) and the homebuilders and others have had little or no complaints in those states.
Thank you for your help with this.
Kirt Mayland