 |
Conservation Commission
March 18, 2010
Approved May 11, 2010
Members Present: Katheryn Holmes, Chair; Bill Annable; Chuck Crickman; Suzanne Levine
Ms. Holmes called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
She indicated that this was a special session meeting devoted to the discussion of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the John Hay National Wildlife Refuge. The FWS Plan was presented at a public meeting on March 11, 2010 and the FWS asked the Conservation Commission (CC) to review the FWS Plan and submit a written response by March 31, 2010.
Ms. Holmes stated that the purpose of the CC’s special session was to discuss the FWS Plan and formulate an official written response from the CC to the FWS regarding the latter’s proposed plans for the John Hay National Wildlife Refuge.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Annable noted that the FWS Plan did not include a proposal concerning how the project was to be funded.
Ms. Holmes restated the mission of the Newbury CC, saying that the CC strives to preserve and conserve the land in the face of ongoing pressures to develop and provide increased human access to undeveloped land.
She noted that the overall goal of the FWS was to provide human access to lands rather than offer conservation and preservation of lands. She added that the FWS is mandated by the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) to conduct environmental assessments of FWS held lands.
Ms. Holmes stated that the John Hay National Wildlife Refuge was established as a migratory bird and wildlife reservation and should be preserved as such. She said the property is a watershed that feeds into Lake Sunapee, is interconnected with Sunset Hill and The Fells and would be adversely affected by increased human impact.
Ms. Holmes reviewed the three options offered by FWS:
- Plan A involves no action and proposes to continue managing the refuge under the current management strategies;
- Plan B proposes increased foot trails, a meadow expansion that reaches to the shoreline, a fishing access area, increased visitor services, a parking lot, and the addition of seasonal on-site staff; and
- Plan C incorporates all of the proposed development in Plan B and adds a network of trails that are widened to make them ADA compliant, an increase in tree cutting, establishing permanent structures for visitor comforts, and adding permanent staff.
Ms. Holmes said that Dick Wright, Selectman, requested that she share his thoughts on the proposed enlargement of the shoreline meadow. Ms. Holmes said that according to Mr. Wright, if the meadow is enlarged to the shore line, the prevailing winds would cause the trees adjacent to the meadow to uproot and fall. She said his opinion is that the proposed meadow expansion is not a good idea.
Ms. Holmes referred to her lifelong involvement with Lake Sunapee and to the tradition of the watershed that exists on the John Hay Wildlife Refuge. She referenced information shared with her from Dave Anderson, former manager of the Wildlife Refuge, citing the collective intentions of the Hay family to preserve the Wildlife Refuge as a pristine watershed dedicated to the conservation and preservation of land and wildlife.
Mr. Crickman noted that the FWS Plan contained the following statement from Alice Hay who “…stipulated that this property be used ‘exclusively for public use as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds, as a migratory bird and wildlife reservation to be known as the John Hay National Wildlife Refuge, and for other conservation purposes consistent therewith.’”
Ms. Holmes read the following letter from Robert Wood, Associate Director & Watershed Steward for the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA) to Carl Melberg, Refuge Planner, Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex:
“…I appreciate the opportunity for comment regarding the proposed Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the John Hay National Wildlife Refuge…..I would like to add a few additional points. The Plan has been presented as an Option A, B, or C choice. I hope that the fish & Wildlife Service will show some flexibility regarding management measures and be able to pick and choose measures as appropriate for this property. A management measures’ appropriateness must be based on management objectives and I hope that local public input will also have a significant role in your management decisions. I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service may have a number of objectives for a single property, and at times these objectives may be somewhat conflicting. In general, the shoreline of Sunapee is
heavily developed as you know. The hay property is valued locally in large part because it is relatively undeveloped lakeside property with a relatively undisturbed shoreline. This is very beneficial from a variety of wildlife habitat perspectives (terrestrial, aquatic, avian, mammalian, etc.) as well as a water quality perspective. I am aware that in addition to wildlife habitat management (your stated priority), public access is also an objective. We are certainly not opposed to public access or increased public access. This property presently provides public access for a number of lower-impact outdoor activities such as hiking/walking, wildlife observation, etc. There practically are no other properties on the lake that provide this type of access. There are those who believe that more access is always better. I do not believe that is true. In your public access decisions, I urge you to consider appropriate access for this property. Too much inappropriate access
will diminish the present value and public uses of this small refuge property. I understand that shoreline fishing access at Sunapee may be seen as limited by some but I am somewhat familiar with the shoreline along this property. I am wondering about the quality of shoreline of shoreline fishing this area would provide. Much of the shore area is very shallow and I have doubts that this is a good location choice for this activity. Again, please consider appropriate choices for the specific property and specific site conditions. It seems to me that the proposals for habitat management, particularly for birds, are fairly wide-ranging. Stated another way, I’m not clear what the objectives are. I am told that a wide variety of migratory song birds, mature forest birds, and other species, including nesting birds of prey, and waterfowl are present. With wide-ranging proposals (in Options A, B, & C) for levels of habitat management (primarily forestry activities), it is
difficult to determine your specific objectives. For a number of years prior to the present economic downturn, the Lake Sunapee watershed and surrounding area experienced substantial development growth and with it, accompanying environmental impacts. In addition to residential and commercial growth, the immediate lake shore area has been impacted by development on state property. Two acres or more was recently paved at Sunapee State Park Beach – all within the “protected (by state law) shoreland” area. An additional public boat launch is planned by the state which requires high-density development, approved by the New Hampshire Department of Economic Development (DRED), is in the works at the state owned ski area at Mt. Sunapee, just upstream from the State Beach. These high-intensity development projects are in opposition to current policies of other state agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Resources (NHDES), which are promoting low-impact
development. In light of the points raised in the March 9 letter and these additional points, as well as issues/concerns raised by others, I urge you to promote low-impact and appropriate use of this small refuge, one of the last “undeveloped” shore areas on this lake. LSPA representatives were present at the March 11 public meeting and I believe that one spoke to you briefly. He mentioned that you had expressed an interest in talking with LSPA regarding the CCP proposals. June Fichter and I would be happy to do so. Please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Respectfully, Robert Wood, etc.”
Mr. Annable noted that the letter from Mr. Wood did not indicate which Option the LSPA supported.
There was general discussion about the public meeting and the information contained in the document titled John Hay National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment February 2010. Questions were raised about the impact to the environment in the face of increased human access, management oversight of the Options, funding for the project, the practicality of allowing shoreline fishing, and the short- and long term effect on wildlife habitation and longevity.
Ms. Holmes noted that the area in question is a watershed to Lake Sunapee. Mr. Crickman discussed the proposed trails and the benefits of having increased trail access in the area.
Ms. Holmes read the following letter from June Fichter, Executive Director, for the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA) to Carl Melberg, Refuge Planner, Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex:
“I have read the Comprehensive conservation Plan and the Environmental Assessment of the John Hay National Wildlife Refuge, and LSPA representatives do plan to attend the rescheduled presentation…..I would like to continue to emphasize the environmental importance of the John hay Refuge to the lake Sunapee Watershed, as forested land, as undisturbed shoreland, and containing an important tributary of Lake Sunapee. I notice the mention of the Sunapee Watershed management Plan that has been adopted by the local municipalities, as well as NHDES, in the CCP. As you know, the watershed plan describes the major threats and possible actions regarding the preservation of water quality in the Sunapee Watershed. As stormwater runoff is the major threat, it cannot be overstated that conserved land such as the John Hay
Refuge becomes even more critical to water quality in Lake Sunapee, by limiting phosphorus intake, thereby limiting increases in algae, etc. Phosphorus loading into the lake is now at 770 lbs./year and is predicted to increase to over 2000 lbs/year. The Sunapee Area Watershed Coalition along with the municipalities’ Planning Boards are addressing an action plan to deal with this and the other issues in the Plan. LSPA has also shred water quality data from Bartlett (also known as Beech) Brook. This brook is unique in the watershed as having its source in Forest Society land, and with the exception of rte. 103A, runs completely through forest – unusual in our developing area. I was pleased to see this referenced in the CCP as well. LSPA can be counted on to continue water quality monitoring in the streams and in the lake, to ensure knowledge of trends. LSPA also runs the laboratory at Colby-Sawyer College with a satellite of NHDES. LSPA would like to partner with Fish and
Wildlife as it currently partners with The Fells and the Forest Society, giving educational programs to children and families on the property. However, overall my recommendation for use of the refuge remains what is now called Alternative A, I realize that this is not Fish and Game’s preferred Alternative B to more actively manage the site but I feel that to maintain the best wildlife integrity, the natural shore part of the stream, Alternative A is the best option, especially given the financial considerations and given the refuge does not warrant more active management. This is noted that a 1.4 acre meadow mowing, for example, listed under “continue page 2-19” is not currently done by the service but by a benevolent abutter who may not be interested in expansion of that meadow. For such a small refuge Alternative A has several advantages that supports the original purpose of Alice Hay to keep the property as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds and that
she donated the land for that purpose. I also note that none of the Alternatives commit to funding or maintenance and that many people during the public meeting were not favorable towards management actions that alter the refuge’s current state. I therefore am at a loss to understand the preference for Alternative B. I believe Alternative A continues the current environmental value and can help the refuge be a best legacy tomorrow, one in which Alice B. Hay would be proud. Best regards, June Fichter, etc.”
There was further discussion concerning the points raised in Ms. Fichter’s letter, the FWS’s Draft Plan, the public meeting, and next steps.
Ms. Holmes canvassed the Commission members for their preference for Option A, B, or C. Ms. Levine, Mr. Unger, Mr. Annable, and Ms. Holmes supported Option A. Mr. Crickman supported Option B. Ms. Homes said she will email Mr. Geddes and Mr. Perotta for their preference.
Mr. Annable suggested that Mr. Wright submit his comments regarding the Plan in writing. Ms. Holmes agreed.
Following receipt of comments from Mr. Wright, Mr. Geddes and Mr. Perotta, Ms. Holmes said she will draft a letter from the CC to the FWS expressing the issues, concerns and preferences expressed by the majority of the Commission members. Said letter will be sent to Mr. Melberg, FWS by the requested March 31, 2010 deadline.
Ms. Holmes adjourned the meeting at 6:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| |
