Lenox Conservation Commission
September 1, 2011
Minutes
Town Hall
Members present: Chair Neal Carpenter, NC; Joe Strauch, JS; Vince Ammendola, VA; Tim Flanagan, TF; Rose Fitzgerald Casey, RFC; Dick Ferren, DF
Members absent with notification: David Lane, DL
Staff present: Peggy Ammendola, PA
Laurel Lake Preservation Association, Dr. Ken Wagner to present his findings regarding surveys, data collection and analysis, and report preparation in response to the Lee and Lenox Conservation Commissions’ Orders of Conditions (Lee 196-0371, and Lenox 198-0242).~
Copies of Laurel Lake Drawdown Evaluation Report, August 2011, prepared by Water Resource Services were made available to the Commissioners a week before this meeting.
Presenting the report was Dr. Wagner, Consultant to LLPA. Approximately 10 members of LLPA were in attendance. Among them were Mark Alimansky, Ray Grogan and Floyd Tuler.
In the fall of 2010 the Lenox Conservation Commission granted an Order of Conditions to LLPA for a three foot drawdown to begin in the winter of 2010, an effort to control the Eurasian Watermilfoil and Zebra Mussels. WRS conducted the field work in December 2010 and June of 2011.
Dr. Wagner reviewed his report which included the following:
- Study Approach
- Sediment Assessment
- Plant Assessment
- Invertebrate Assessment
- Watershed Assessment
The drawdown was limited to a depth of 30 inches due to a late start, rain and other climate issues. There was not much pre-drawdown data other than that of the zebra mussel in the areas assessed. In those areas there were almost no zebra mussels in the drawdown zone when surveyed June 20, 21 and 22 of 2011. He feels that a further drawdown could make a difference. The study found that there is almost no mollusk population other than the zebra mussels. The drawdown did result in some shift of the plant species in the shallow water. There was no indication of any problem for fish or snails, as the snails go into deep water.
Dr. Wagner stated that based on his study he saw no down side of the drawdown and would like to do another 3 foot drawdown.
TF asked about the plant survey methodology, what happened over what period of time. Dr. Wagner provided detailed information.
JS inquired about the sediment assessment. Dr. Wagner said that it was very fine, largely organic, found little clay, but did not work intensively beyond 8 feet as it would have been an added cost to the applicant. JS also asked about the requirement in the Special Conditions to assess the presence of zebra mussels and the two native bivalves, but the Report states there was no requirement to survey mollusks other than zebra mussels. Dr. Wagner acknowledged his error.
JS asked about the emerging vegetation at the area on the other side of the causeway. Dr. Wagner said that he did not look at that area, but that is a reasonable request.
TF pointed out the following requirements of the Order of Conditions that are missing in the report:
1) Emergent Vegetation –The 2nd bulleted item on the Special Conditions to the Order of Conditions states: The engineering firm will supply a summary and evaluation of all data relevant to possible impacts of the drawdown on the invasive and native plants in Laurel Lake and the adjacent emergent vegetation. TF said that the Commission has expressed concern at several hearings about the bordering wetlands and discussed emergent vegetation. TF recalled that at the last meeting Dr. Wagner stated that he did not think there would be any impact, but the Commission explained that it needs baseline data for comparison.
2) Watershed Management Action Plan-The LLPA agreed to this condition but it is lacking in this report. The report states that given the threats of the milfoil and zebra mussels a WMAP is not considered a priority. In response to TF’s inquiry of the missing Plan, Dr. Wagner said that he does not understand how the Commission could ask LLPA to establish such a plan.
TF responded that the LLPA is the Applicant who is asking for permits for the drawdown therefore it is LLPA’s responsibility to comply with the Wetlands Protection Act. In previous meetings the Commission has suggested that LLPA follow the Massachusetts Volunteers Guide for Surveying a Lake Watershed and Preparing an Action Plan. TF appreciated that Dr. Wagner has only recently been engaged in this process, so he may not have been aware of the repeated requests for this information, but the Commission has been very clear on this requirement and understood that the LLPA was in good position to comply.
TF asked Dr. Wagner if a WMAP was forthcoming and Dr. Wagner responded that he did not know and stated further that he did not know what the Commission wanted. TF suggested that Dr. Wagner review the Volunteers Guide and reiterated that the Commission, as required by DEP, is asking for a viable action plan authored to help control the nutrient flow to the vegetation, thereby reducing the need for control strategies in the Lake for eradication of invasive species and the dependency for repeating that strategy. Dr. Wagner argued that the Lenox Conservation Commission should be pushing for a solution and not just act as a regulatory group. Additionally he placed blame on the Commission for not contacting the LLPA for status reports prior to this meeting, and scolded the Commission for expecting an
Action Plan. The Commission maintained that the Special Condition that a Plan be prepared had been agreed upon and this meeting was scheduled for the LLPA to update and review the Order of Conditions. Dr. Wagner told the Commission that it is the responsibility of the Towns of Lee and Lenox to lead the effort for the WMAP while adding that he does not see an Action Plan relates to what LLPA is trying to do and claimed that the Commission’s request “sounded like extortion”.
Dr. Wagner said that a plan developed by any group without input from all groups involved would be useless. TF said that the guidance document suggested by the Commission covers that process.
TF told Dr. Wagner that last August the Commission discussed and made a part of the Order of Conditions a request that information be collected throughout the growing season, but this report is for only one point in time, a few days in June. Dr. Wagner said that the Commission has not been specific.
Dr. Wagner asked the Commission for suggestions on how to collect the necessary data. The Commission explained that it does not direct how data is to be collected, but its responsibility lies in analyzing the data provided by the Applicants to determine the effects of the drawdown on the lake. Dr. Wagner argued that the Commission did not want to be a part of the process but only “wanted to say either yay or nay”. JS responded that the Commission has tried to be a part of the process and has made it clear what the Commission’s concerns have been. Despite going over these concerns many times, for an extended time, the Applicants return with a minimum of what has been requested. He asked Dr. Wagner what more was expected of the Commission.
TF told Dr. Wagner that he would be perfectly happy to have a discussion about a proposed methodology if he was concerned and added that the information was not in the Notice of Intent, therefore it was discussed at previous meetings and included in the Order of Conditions as a special condition.
TF explained to the Applicants and Dr. Wagner that the Commission conditionally approved a drawdown request for 3 years and reserve the right to cancel that permit if these data were not submitted. He stated that it is important for Dr. Wagner to collect, analyze and report on the data requested by the Commission and to expand the scope of the survey beyond what has been submitted to comply with the order. The Commission does not see the benefit in canceling the drawdown order, but would like to see better compliance for what they have asked for.
Discussion ensued and it was determined that valid data on emergent vegetation could be gathered at this time. Further it was determined that data collected during the lake survey would be sufficient to create vegetation maps requested in the Order of Conditions. TF stressed that the information the Commission needs is on dominant species and the drawdown effect on them
Emergent vegetation data throughout the year is requested for next year’s report as well as what progress has been made to achieve a WMAP.
JS suggested that because of the uniformity of the lake bottom, Dr. Wagner should look at the transects and compare them with an eye on reducing their number. Dr. Wagner agreed and said that he would look into as that could expedite the next survey.
A member of the Association who did not identify himself told the Commission that in past years the Association has attempted to secure grant money to assist with the developing the WMAP and so far has been unsuccessful. This effort continues. TF asked that this information be provided in the report.
Two other unnamed members of the Association expressed frustration and stated that they felt that this had become adversarial. One asked what would happen if the LLPA stopped their effort to protect the Lake and if the Commission would take over. The Applicants were informed that the Commission is a hearing authority and its purpose is to review proposals and administer the Wetlands Protection Act and Scenic Mountain Act.
Dr. Wagner asked for clarity on requested information. He stated that he hasn’t heard anything proposed by the Commission to be unreasonable, but he wanted to make sure that when he returns that he would not be surprised again by what is being requested. Items were discussed and Dr. Wagner was asked if any further clarification was necessary. His decision was that he will submit to the Commission what he proposed to do and ask the Commission for approval before proceeding. The Commission agreed to this proposal and will await further communication.
Other Business
Scenic Mountain Act
1.) At the Conservation Commission meeting of August 18, 2011, the Commissioners voted to agree to request that the Board of Selectmen submit a Request for Determination (RDA) on this project. Subsequent to that meeting the Chair of the Conservation Commission suggested that filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) would probably be the better route to take. At the Board of Selectmen’s meeting of August 31, 2011, the Selectmen agreed to abide by the recommendation of the Conservation Commission.
In attendance was Sonya Bykofsky and Selectman Ken Fowler.
The Commission explained the process of filing a Request for Determination of Applicability versus filing a Notice of Intent and discussed the merits of filing an NOI with regards to the existing Dr. Jordan Fieldman Monument at Kennedy Park. The Commission favors the NOI as it is advertised and abutters are notified.
TF made a motion to recommend to the Board of Selectmen to file an NOI. JS seconded the motion and the Commission voted to agree 6-0. NC will inform the Town Manager on September 2, 2011.
Estelle Miller, 61 Bramble Lane Map 1 Parcel 44, At the August 18, 2011 meeting the Commissioners submit a replacement plan with modification. On August 24, 2011 the replacement plan was submitted.
Minutes: RFC made a motion to approve the minutes of August 18, 2011 with one minor edit. VA seconded the motion and the Commission approved with a vote of
- DF abstained as he was not present at that meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
