The Eightmile River
Wild & Scenic Study Committee
Meeting Minutes – October 27, 2003, Lyme Town Hall
Present: Nathan Frohling, Peter Sielman, Sally Snyder, Anthony Irving, Linda Krause, David Tiffany, David Bingham, Eric Belt, Sue Merrow; NPS – Jamie Fosburgh, Kevin Case, Dan Hubbard
Absent: Walter Smith, Jon Morris, Bill Koch
1) Meeting called to order at 5:10 PM
2) Minutes of September 22, 2003 approved unanimously.
3a) Natural Resources Subcommittee Report – Case reported. The subcommittee has not met recently as a number of activities being done by consultants are waiting on completing contracts to get underway. Consultants that contracting is underway with include Piotr Parasiewicz for a mesohabsim instream flow study, as well as the consulting team of Hank Gruner and Michael Klemens to undertake a watershed-wide ecosystem/biodiversity assessment using existing data. The final botany/natural community report from botanist Bill Moorhead should be completed in about three weeks. The subcommittee is waiting for a write-up from CT DEP on the exemplary nature of macro invertebrates in the watershed. Belt is working on the geology write-up. A clarification on the operation of the Moulson Pond hydroelectric facility is being developed to better understand how river flow is affected at that point in the river. It does not appear it will be a major obstacle to sustaining the claim of a free flowing river, though further study is needed.
3b) Cultural/Historical Subcommittee – The subcommittee has not met recently. Merrow re-summarized the meeting with State Archaeologist, Nick Bellantoni in September. Fosburgh noted he has been in touch with a cultural landscape historian he knows and has queried him on helping out with no response. The Study Committee showed interest in continuing the pursuit of such an assessment. Case will pursue Fosburgh’s contact to see if he can assist in undertaking a landscape assessment for the Eightmile. Interest was raised by the Study Committee to pursue recreational resources more definitively as well. To date the subcommittee has not focused on them. They agreed to look into the quality of fishing, as well as boating in Hamburg Cove. Merrow and Krause agreed to be co-chairs of the subcommittee as the seat was vacant. Carolyn Bacdayan will be asked by Irving to be a formal member of the subcommittee. Bingham agreed to help find someone to represent Salem on the subcommittee.
3c) Management Subcommittee – Frohling reported the subcommittee’s workplan has been completed and approved. He summarized components of the plan which include evaluating threats to outstanding resource values(ORV), assessing current levels of protection for the ORVs, identifying gaps in protection, and determining strategies to improve protection of ORVs if deemed necessary. The overarching need throughout the Management Plan process is ongoing interaction with the local communities and their land use commissions. The Natural resource and Cultural Subcommittees were asked to provide the Management Subcommittee with a simple list of threats to the outstanding resource values they ultimately recommend. The Management Subcommittee Workplan goal and guiding principles were reviewed by the full Study Committee and supported unanimously. A contract is being finalized with NRCS to begin the local regulation review process. The final workplan is an attachment to these meeting minutes.
3d) Outreach & Education Subcommittee – Case summarized the outcomes of the subcommittee’s most recent meeting. The subcommittee has identified five primary areas of focus for the next year including: development of general marketing materials; landowner outreach; community meetings; municipal boards communications; and media. Two communications were sent out to the list of names developed from the previous community meetings and town fairs, (~130 names) including a summary of the community meeting findings and a notice on the botany walk. Website still needs updates. 2,000 copies of the brochure will be printed in November. The Botany Walk was successful with 34 attendees and good guidance from Bill Moorhead. Case and Wend Goodfriend from the CT River Coastal Conservation District have begun planning the spring vernal pool training and assessment. A call for volunteers will go out in early January, with trainings in February and early March (weather cooperating).
4) Old Business – none
5a) New Business – Irving reported that he, Case and Snyder met with the Acting Director of the Inland Water Resources Division, the Interim Director of the Planning & Standards Division and the Interim Chief of the Water Bureau at DEP to introduce the study and discuss opportunities for DEP involvement. The question of Rt. 11 arose. DEP asked for a clarification on the position of the Study Committee and NPS regarding the project, especially in light of the possible review responsibility NPS may have related to any federal permits associated with the effort within the watershed. Fosburgh noted he asked Case to look into the status of the project and what the impacts may be to the resources of the Eightmile Watershed. Case will be doing this over the next month. Fosburgh also noted that at some point NPS may be asked to sign off on permits. Until NPS knows the status and potential impacts of the project it is not possible to take a position. The Study Committee and NPS are assuming the EPA and DEP will be addressing adequately the resource impact issues that would be of interest to the Wild & Scenic Study. The Committee agreed to not take a position on Rt. 11, as they don’t have the knowledge or details of the project to make an informed decision, as well it would be too divisive to the Committee, distraction the focus of the Committee’s purpose. The Committee and NPS also clearly noted their sensitivity to DEP’s concerns of weighing in at the 11th hour on the project. Every effort will be made to let the appropriate agencies know in a timely manner if there are issues regarding the project that relate to the issues of the Wild & Scenic Study.
In other new business the entire Study Committee thanked Peter Sielman for his commitment to the Study and especially noted how integral he was in getting the study going and being a strong force in keeping the effort moving forward in a timely manner.
6) Next meeting date Monday, December 15, 2003 in Salem. Note: the Management Subcommittee will meet just prior to the Study Committee meeting at 3:45 pm.
Meeting adjourned 6:45 PM
Submitted K. Case
Eightmile River Wild & Scenic Study
Management Subcommittee
Workplan – Final, 10/28/03
I. Subcommittee Development
a. Establish Types of Representation Desired on Subcommittee and recruit appropriate members
Who Completes: NF lead, with Entire SubCommittee
Product(s): Broad Based and Active Subcommittee Membership
Due Date: Prior to December 15, 2003 Study Cmt. Meeting
Notes: Committee identified need for East Haddam and possibly Salem land use commission representation – needs follow-up
b. Establish Meeting Schedule
Who Completes: Entire Committee
Product(s): Meeting Schedule Calendar
Due Date: September 22, 2003
Notes: Committee agree on 3:45-5:00pm just prior to monthly full Study Committee meetings
c. Establish Mission/Goals and Guiding Principles for Subcommittee work.
Who Completes: Entire Committee
Product(s): Mission Statement, Goal(s), Guiding Principles
Due Date: September 22, 2003
Notes: Committee agreed upon the following:
“The Goal of Management Subcommittee is to preserve the resources of the Eightmile River Watershed and support achievement of designation by developing a management plan that is guided by three fundamental principles: (1) Resource Conservation and protection should be fully integrated with traditional patterns of use, ownership, and jurisdiction, relying on existing authorities. (2) Management of the Eightmile River Watershed should be based on a cooperatively developed plan that establishes resource protection standards and identifies key actions accomplished through cooperation among all public and private organizations with an interest in the river. (3) Any land conservation initiatives related to a Wild & Scenic designation will be based solely on voluntary willing seller arrangements. There will be no acquisition of lands through federal condemnation in conjunction with a Wild & Scenic River designation.
II. Perform Threat Analysis of Outstanding Resource Values:
a. Identify specific threats to the following resource values could be degraded (stresses and sources of stress), and recommend the tools to assess the probability of such degradation (following is a list of possible outstanding resource values for the purposes of example – it is not the final list)
i. Archaeological and Historic
ii. Geology -
iii. Instream Flow -
iv. Water Quality - benthic macroinvertebrates
v. Unique plant and animal species, natural communities
vi. River Ecosystem Quality
Who Completes: The Natural Resources and Cultural Resources Sub Committees will provide a generalized list of threats for the ORVs they recommend. K.Case, with support of the Management Subcommittee will merge information and compile into a list of major threats and a suggested set of tools to assess how such threats manifest themselves in the Eightmile River Watershed.
Product(s): List of ORVs with brief summary of existing condition and details of their major threats and the tools available to assess such threats.
Due Date: December 31, 2003
b. Assess threats and prioritize into primary categories (i.e. residential development, water supply diversions, stormwater runoff from existing roads, etc.) based on the significance and likelihood of their potential impact
Who Completes: K. Case/Committee/Consultant/K. Geisler (depends on type of assessment tools chosen)
Product(s): A list, ranked by the level of impact, of sources of stress that threaten the quality of the ORVs accompanied by a discussion of how each source of stress causes resource degradation.
Due Date: Feb. 29, 2004
III. Determine Existing Resource Protection
a. Review Existing Municipal Regulations, Policies and Plans
Who Completes: NRCS under the guidance of the Management Committee
Product(s): Comprehensive written review of the municipal environmental regulations for the towns of East Haddam, Lyme, and Salem, along with a cursory review for the towns of Colchester and East Lyme. The review will assess how they currently deal with issues related to growth and their potential impact on each community’s natural resources. See complete NRCS scope of work for details.
Due Date: Jan. 23, 2004
b. Existing State Regulations, Policies and Plans – includes DEP, DPH, DOT, OPM, DPUC (Siting Council, Water Planning Council). WUCC, State C&D Plan, Unified Watershed Assessment, CT Resources Protection Program, Coastal Zone Act - CT Coastal Nonpoint Program, Connecticut River Gateway Commission
Who Completes: K. Case, S. Snyder (DEP related info)
Product(s): Written brief summary of regulations and policies affecting management of Eightmile River Watershed natural or cultural resources.
Due Date: Jan. 23, 2004
c. Existing Federal Regulations, Policies and Plans – EPA, Army Corps, DOI (NPS, USFWS, USGS), USDA (NRCS, USFS), FERC
Who Completes: K. Case, (Smith to help with NRCS piece)
Product(s): Written brief summary of regulations and policies affecting management of Eightmile River Watershed natural or cultural resources.
Due Date: Jan. 23, 2004
d. Assessment of the implementation and enforcement of existing municipal regulations, practices, policies and plans.
Who Completes: Members of Management Subcommittee
Product(s): Written summary of the implementation and enforcement effectiveness of municipal regulations and policies
Due Date: Feb. 29, 2004
e. Recent Municipal, State & Federal Actions to Protect Outstanding Resource Values (i.e. bonding authorization)
Who Completes: K. Case, with assistance from Management Subcommittee and NRCS Reg. Review write-up.
Product(s): Written Summary of Recent Resource Protective Actions
Due Date: Jan. 23, 2004
f. Identifying areas within the Eightmile River Watershed already protected or non-buildable, by creating a map depicting a visual representation of existing protected open space, already built upon areas, possibly steep slopes, wetlands, floodplains, and other appropriate variables.
Who Completes: K. Geisler with guidance from Management Subcommittee
Product(s): Map of Eightmile River Watershed depicting buildable and non-buildable land areas. A summation of the acres of buildable land in the watershed that is categorized by the local land use zones.
Due Date: Jan. 23, 2004
IV. Analyze and Assess the Effectiveness of Existing Resource Protection for Outstanding Resource Values. Include an assessment of the adequacy of existing regulations in meeting the requirements of Sec. 6c of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. Note: This is a comparative analysis of the outcome from Sec. II, b. (the list of major threats and their impacts) with all of Sec. III (the summary of how well resources are currently being protected).
a. Identify desired levels of local, state and federal protection for each outstanding resource value that will (a) meet the requirements of Section 6(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, and (b) identify any additional protection goals deemed desirable by the subcommittee.
Who Completes: K. Case with support of Management Subcommittee Members and resource specialists
Product(s): Summary of target protection levels for each outstanding resource value.
Due Date: March 31, 2004
b. Compare Primary Threats to each Outstanding Resource Value with Existing Protection for the following resources:
i. Archaeological and Historic -
ii. Geology -
iii. Instream Flow -
iv. Water Quality - benthic macro invertebrates
v. Unique plant and animal species, natural communities -
vi. River Ecosystem Quality -
Who Completes: K. Case with support of Management Subcommittee Members and resource specialists
Product(s): Matrix of ORVs, Target Protection Levels, Threats, Existing level of protection.
Due Date: May 3, 2004
c. Describe gap between desired levels of protection (Part IV,a) and existing protection (Part IV,b). Determine if the gap between desired and existing protection is large enough to not adequately protect the resource values (Section 6c test).
Who Completes: K. Case with support of Management Subcommittee Members and NRCS report
Product(s): Written summary of gaps organized by ORV protection goals.
Due Date: May 3, 2004
d. Possibly host a planning charette with local land use officials to assess existing protection measures and develop strategies to meet resource protection goals.
Who Completes: Management Subcommittee Members
Product(s): Charette and summary of outcomes
Due Date: June 30, 2004
V. Establish a management strategy, identifying what tools are available and feasible to implement, including the implementation approach, for the long-term protection of the outstanding natural resource values in the Eightmile River Watershed.
a. Set Protection & Management Goals for Each ORV – establish clear benchmarks for successfully achieving each goal. Identify federal, state and local measures for meeting protection and management goals, explore their feasibility, and include these in the management plan and/or pursue their implementation during the study. Clearly distinguish actions to be implemented during study and post-study. Include specific tasks and budget with each goal.
Who Completes: 1) Federal : Mgmt Subc to work through Kevin and NPS, and full Study Committee to identify and pursue; 2) State: Mgmt Subc to work through Kevin and NPS, DEP and full Study Committee to identify and pursue; 3) Local: Mgmt Subc to work with full Study Committee to convene a partnership of potential key parties (i.e. CRERPA, NRCS, Tidewaters Institute, UCONN, TNC, Eightmile Coalition, etc,) to:
a. Approach and engage key town officials, such as land use board members, to open a municipal process for strengthening local protection and management of the Eightmile River Watershed.
b. Provide needed capacity and expertise for bringing appropriate tools and guidance to the municipal process and the "staff time" to facilitate implementation of the process.
c. Facilitate formation of an outreach process to build awareness and support for the municipal process and identified protection and management measures.
Product(s): A written management strategy for the Eightmile River Watershed with clear goals for each ORV. Also may include implementation of some goals during the study process.
Due Date: Sept. 1, 2004
b. Assess existing protection, protection measures taken during study, and protection measures included in the proposed management plan and evaluate their sufficiency to meet section 6c.
Who Completes: Management Subcommittee Members
Product(s): Written summary of how Eightmile River Communities meet the requirements of Sec. 6c.
Due Date: October 1, 2004
c. Create plan for how Management Plan will be implemented. Include establishment of a post-study Committee to oversee implementation of Management Plan and a process for review and update of Management Plan
Who Completes: Management Subcommittee
Product(s): Written implementation plan.
Due Date: Sept. 1, 2004
VI. Establish an Outreach Plan for Ensuring Maximum Public Participation in Management Plan development process
a. Determine the audiences to be reached – both for providing information to and collecting input from.
b. Determine appropriate times to communicate with audiences, what the message should be and how it should be delivered, as well as what input is desired and how it should be collected
c. Establish and implement strategy to work with and receive input from land use commissions
d. Determine what if any media is desired for the Management Subcommittee work and develop strategy to engage such media.
e. Maintain 8mile Website with Management Subcommittee information.
Who Completes: Outreach Subcommittee with substantial support and guidance from Management Subcommittee
Product(s): Public meetings, mailings, visits to land use commissions, press releases, land owner interaction at individual level, other…
Due Date: Ongoing