Natural Resource Advisory Board Minutes
February 4, 2003
Meeting at Town Hall, basement, called to order by Chairman Glenn Shields at 6:35.
Also attending: Paul Conor, John Riehl, Doug Franklin and Lezli Rowell.
Glenn opened with the remarks that Harbor Planning Group (HPG) has a busy schedule with many meetings, but that NRAB meetings remains a venue to focus on the remaining role of the NRAB, attending minutes and other business, and look at the board's other roles.
Lezli introduced the page she had prepared, in response to John's mailed inquiry as to agenda. This did seem to match topics as expected for agenda by Doug; it was agreed to discuss what role the NRAB would hold in the ACEC Resource Plan.
John noted that the NRAB should take a lead on Water Quality, Natural Resources and Shoreline Land Uses, and that he is willing to see a NRAB delegate to each topic. Such lead fits with the board's charge, will be important as there may be more severe issue to focus on in the Harbor.
Lezli explained her interest, as outlined in the prepared agenda page, to match the four NRAB members delegated to work on the Shellfish / Marina / Public Access with another four members delegated to work on the ACEC Plan, recognizing that these halves of the work have been split up. She expressed her own preferred interest lies in handling the water quality and shoreline land use issues, that it is where she is best applied. She suggested forwarding such recommendation to the BOS seeking advertisement for additional board members, as there is no maximum complement - and she wished to forward three proposed motions (outlined on prepared agenda page) to that effect.
Glenn said that he felt the HPG is already too large and that adding members to the NRAB would create another difficult group. He preferred to keep the momentum from the HPG, get away from "the anecdotal and incidental," he did not see additional members speeding efforts.
Lezli reiterated that the idea was to delegate two task groups toward the two halves of the NRAB's work.
Paul Conor recalled that the split of the Harbor Management Plan did not originated with the NRAB, that it came form a memo from two town employees without the board's input, and effectively split the NRAB's work into two plans. He pointed out that while work was underway on the Marina half, the ACEC / Resource half remains in limbo. He sees the Natural Resource issues more paramount than Marina.
Doug expressed that he did wish to spend time contributing on the ACEC Plan.
Glenn reiterated that he did not see the use of adding three new members to go forward, but it could be considered if the need presents.
>From the audience, Helen Miranda Wilson stated that she is incredulous that the two plans have not been advancing simultaneously, she wondered how the HPG could consider commercial uses of the Marina without considering the Water Quality chapter or the impacts of Shoreline development; she thought that the staff memo proposed two groups working sequentially, but sees the splitting as inefficient if not going forward together. She made analogy to the work of the Affordable
Housing Task Force which, like the HPG includes staff with members from various boards, considering all the issues, to complement the Housing Authority: this is a similar process except that it has worked out the opposite for the NRAB. She remains surprised that the Harbor Management Plan has been split.
>From the audience, Dale Donovan observed that the HPG is an ex-officio working committee, and he commented that if more people are assigned to the NRAB, they would also be-on the HPG. The HPG was created to meet bureaucratic requirements, much like the Local Comprehensive Plan, and it will result in a thick document to meet those bureaucratic guidelines, but will it have any meaning? The more important part is to get on to implementing a Plan, and often nothing comes of such plans.
Paul responded that if the Plans are certified then the Town should live by the plans. He wondered why the Harbor Master isn't planning any Public Hearings until Summer and why the marina chapter has idled while the Shellfish plan looks like it is getting into place. He commented that the unattended issues (water and land use) will be even more controversial. He noted that the scope and division of work did not come from the NRAB's table, but since it is done and divided, it would not hurt to get more members to the table and get the support of the staff on both sides of the tasks.
>From the audience, Suzanne Thomas said she would view it as a loss to not have the same people who work on the HPG on the ACEC Plan, that two separate groups would not "carry over".
Glenn Shields thought that both sides will work with water quality, that there needs to be communication, "let egos go", and he read into the record the 1987 Annual Town Meeting Article 52 which enacted the NRAB and gave its charge with expectation of assistance from staff.
>From the audience, Ira Wood questioned whether the charge appointed staff now had become voting members on the HPG (answered: yes) and he commented that it does not say that in the Town Meeting charge.
Suzanne Thomas spoke to the staff voting, saying that she feels the 1987 Article has been replaced by the BOS accepting the provisions of 301 CMR 23.00 and appointing a pursuant HPG to "streamline" harbor planning, and that the vote to give staff voting originated in a meeting of the Harbor Planning Group.
John Riehl thought the vote came from the NRAB; Lezli asserted that the staff-voting did originate with a Harbor Planning Group vote of five staff members and four NRAB members (moved by S. Thomas, seconded by E. Beebe); Suzanne thought Lezli may have missed the NRAB meeting in which the board voted the issue; Lezli stated that she was present at the Sept. 5, 2002 meeting where the topic was discussed but no such motion or vote occurred.
Lezli suggested moving items numbered 1, 2 and 3 from the prepared agenda notes as motions, and wished to take the proposals as a group; Doug preferred to take them individually.
Lezli Rowell moved that "both the HPG-generated Shellfish/Marina/Public Access Plan for State certification, and the ACEC Resource Plan be submitted to the NRAB's consideration, to be voted accepted, amended or rejected, before submission to the BOS, Town Meeting or state Agency". Doug Franklin seconded the motion.
Discussion followed, including John Riehl's comment that he wondered how this could "add value" to the process, did this intend to go back toward the 1987 ATM charge? Lezli responded that it certainly should define the process to match the TM charge, that Town Meeting did not replace the charge with the 301 CMR 23.00 process and that if the NRAB doesn't take stewardship of the process, then "what are we doing here?".(expletive deleted)
Glenn wished to just move forward with the HPG, hold discussions of process there.
Paul said that not everybody likes the split process, that retaining the NRAB as the final step in the process is most responsive to the Town's expectations. Doug reiterated that he has no problem with this motion, and Paul saw it as integrating the BOS directive to use the State's process with the TM charge.
>From the audience, Dale made an analogy of the Local Comprehensive Plan done in the mid-90's by an appointed group, rather than by the Planning Board, also to conform to a prescribed process. He observed that there is still resentment and little interest to implement or support the work, and the "value" of retaining the appropriate board's support is gaining broader support for the resulting plan in keeping recognition of Town Meeting's directive.
John saw two paths to the NRAB process, prefers the NRAB to actively engage the planning processes than to delegate, wants the board to be the integrating body.
Paul reminded the board that the UPG will only exist for a year or two, then the NRAB will be left to carry on implementation, and that the public perception regarding voting staff won't go away - this motion is a mechanism to put the concerns to rest.
John proposed an amendment to add "jointly" into the wording, waiting for both separate plans to be considered by the NRAB simultaneously; Doug objected, found this to be "bass-ackwards".
Lezli called for the vote on the motion.
Suzanne Thomas stated her opinion that the HPG's Draft Harbor Management Plan, including Shellfish/Marina/Public Access, can go directly to the State without the NRAB or Town Meeting's acceptance; that it automatically goes to the BOS so Town Meeting approval isn't necessary.
Lezli objected strongly to this interpretation of process, questioning how a "community driven document" could bypass the community it is meant to serve, and found such sentiments quite scary.
Doug called for a vote on the motion. The Chairman presented the vote: motion accepted by vote of 4 - 0 - I (Shields abstain).
Lezli moved her proposed motion #2, "As the NRAB has no maximum complement, additional membership be solicited, with the intention of being able to task an equal four members to the ACEC Resource Plan who are not appointed to the HPG". Paul Conor seconded. Discussion included Doug stating that he prefers the NRAB remaining active as in the HMP half rather than tasking, and he is not in favor of the motion.
John noted that the motion and then proposed motion #3 both relate to a process for the ACEC plan, and would rather have the Conservation agent, Emily Beebe, express to the NRAB what her concerns for the Resource Plan will be.
Doug moved to table the motions; Paul wondered why the NRAB should wait to get direction from Emily when the earlier discussion had been about the NRAB taking the initiative with the Water Quality, Shoreline and Natural Resource chapters as a start to the ACEC Plan? Paul commented that water quality is "not political" but it is on the Shoreline that "the battle begins".
Lezli expressed that the Water Quality chapter is a comprehensive start, certainly in need of some updating, but that the Shoreline is only a springboard - that it falls short. The process previously laid out by the NRAB was that the board should incorporate into the chapter the regulatory permitting process as it impacts shoreline resources: to "wrap our heads around" planning board
process, zoning process, conservation and board of health permits and variances, to be able to craft recommendations supportive of resource interests.
Dale commented that there are no individuals on the HPG - that the NRAB as a body has been appointed to the HPG, just as it is not Suzanne Thomas appointed, it is the Beach Administrator on the HPG, and this was an inadvertent "snafu" of the BOS.
Paul expressed support for adding NRAB membership to spread the workload by tasking equal groups. He observed that the decision would still be up to the BOS.
John prefers to initiate the ACEC work and not wait for directive form the BOS. He stated that he thought the ACEC definition has changed (to which Lezli informed the board that it stands as the designation was filed, including 100' landward of the 10' contour line, although there is interest abroad to change it) and he wished to invite Emily to an NRAB meeting to discuss her ideas and
consider the motions then. Doug suggested that should be the agenda for the next meeting.
Lezli concurred, and withdrew her motion, which was accepted by the seconder.
Lezli stated that her interest in the planning work surrounds the topics of water quality and shoreline development, and would like to be tasked toward the ACEC Resource Plan.
Doug moved to direct the Chair to schedule a meeting with the Conservation Agent for the purpose of discussing process for the ACEC Plan. Lezli seconded. Motion accepted by vote of 5 - 0.
Doug introduced discussion of the next prepared agenda item - the 1995 HMP Water Quality chapter, which he noted was an excellent work that should stand alone for informative distribution, and serve as the basis for the ACEC Plan.
Paul reminded the board that it was drafted, with the technical support of county Health Agent George Heufelder, to be a stand alone chapter for distribution to the community, and that while new material may now be added, it still holds great utility.
John stated that he is involved in working on water quality with Audubon, the CCNS and the Shellfish Constable, to meet soon with UMASS Dartmouth in discussion of the State's proposed "Estuaries Project" and his concern is that limited data has shown areas of low oxygen and high nitrates, with no conclusions yet whether the quality problem source is natural or an upland
pollution. In answering Glenn's question of whether the same sites as previously testing had been sampled, John stated that the 10 same sites were used with a few additional locations. He noted that problems were on the north and east sides of the Harbor.
Paul wondered how grabbing surface water samples could discriminate between natural process-sourced quality problems and sewage influenced quality problems.
Lezli commented that the presentation to BOS regarding the Estuaries Project fell short of her expectation to model with actual, observed groundwater inputs - easily available from the wealth of on-lot domestic wells. She specifically asked Brain Dudley of the DEP about the modeling, to which he had responded that Cape Cod Commission land use models would be used rather than observed data, which did not satisfy her that the project was a worthwhile expenditure or process for the Town.
Helen commented from the audience that John Portnoy of the CCNS has access to a lot of data and has great expertise; she wondered why the Park was not included in the HPG? Paul Conor responded that it is because the NRAB did not organize this process, that it had come from the staff memo.
Doug wondered about the NRAB's budget, to be able to get copies of the Water Quality chapter printed for distribution. Lezli noted that the board's budget is to be slashed, and Paul recalled that there had been $2,000 budgeted in anticipation of printing expenses. From the audience, Ira Wood and Dale Donovan reviewed the budget, and advised that the $2,000 is only available through June,
and that any request for budget in the next fiscal year needs to be presented at the joint B0S/FinCom meeting (Feb. 5).
John stated that the Water Quality work is from the mid-90s and he suggests starting over at ground zero, seeking new information.
Lezli expressed her respect for the Water Quality chapter and the guidance of George Heufelder in preparing the work, and still sees the chapter as quite valid.
Paul also thought the chapter is still relevant and readily updates with new information, that it is easier to start with what is available than from scratch.
Doug viewed the Water chapter as a "white paper" or interim piece of validity.
Glenn commented that it is expected to work from the 1995 Plan, although the chapter is not final.
John stated that the chapter might only be a "reference point" but that he did not see its structure as useful.
Doug commented that he sees the chapter as the NRAB's contribution to the ACEC discussion, although it needs editing.
John moved to propose the Water Quality chapter as a springboard to begin the ACEC Plan process discussion with the conservation Agent; Paul seconded. Discussion returned to the concern of the NRAB's budget and ability to spend on copying. Lezli suggested first voting the motion on the table, then considering a motion seeking appropriation. Paul stated that the budget will be relevant to getting the ACEC Plan on the table with Emily. He noted that the Resource plan
is the balance of the Shellfish plan, putting the uplanders under the same scrutiny that has been applied to the aquaculturists.
John wanted to amend the motion to include his interest in the Natural Resource chapter, drawing on old material from a report issued in the early 1970's. Lezli suggested that the amendment add her "bullet points" from the Shoreline Land Use and Intertidal chapters and John's "bullet points" from the Natural Resource chapter to the use of the Water Quality chapter as a springboard framing discussion on ACEC Plan process with the conservation Agent. She then forwarded the amendment as a new motion; Paul seconded. The motion was accepted by a vote of 5 - 0.
>From the prepared agenda notes, Lezli referred to the notes meant to express to newer members the past work and involvement's by the NRAB. She recalled the board being more proactive, but without regularly scheduled meetings that ability to comment to other boards and support natural resource interest loses momentum. From the audience, Helen agreed, stating that the work on the
Planning Board often surrounds land that is "wet" and that in generating land use bylaws to serve the Town, the NRAB's input would be useful.
Lezli made a specific example of a recently granted ZBA variance that should have received the same commentary from the NRAB that past cases have received, such as supporting the Planning Board in its consideration of an appeal. When John questioned just what is a variance, what is the referenced case - Lezli said that is the problem, that the NRAB as currently composed does not know the regulatory, permitting climate or the caseloads. Helen reiterated that it would be useful to have the NRAB available to give input to the other boards.
John expressed concern that being deep into the HPG work on the HMP it may be difficult to devote to a broader undertaking of the processes of the other boards. Lezli commented that this is precisely why she came to the table with the suggestion of seeking new NRAB members to be tasked toward the necessary ACEC workload, in recognizing that the harbor management plan has been split into two processes, and that it would be overwhelming for the board to cover so much ground.
Lezli recalled for newer members the process of considering a new job description, Natural Resources Officer, in which she met with most of the Town's boards and committees to seek input, and also left each with reference to applicable chapters of the 1995 HW which the NRAB would wish their comments or input toward. She felt that this process of updating the plan was still valid, as is the inclusion of the other board's concerns.
Suzanne Thomas, commenting from the audience, said that the Local Comprehensive Plan is three years overdue in its updating; that considering such an update process with input from Town boards on the HMP chapters and the NRAB's Town Meeting vote should just be put aside.
Glenn commented that the Town has evolved in the past ten years in terms of its concern for its resources and the new impacts from increasing population, and suggested rather than fighting the brushfires, it would be useful to bring the other boards and committees together.
John stated that he is aware of places of environmental degradation, such as south of the Gut, Duck Pond and Duck Creek; he suggested siting priorities and planning for follow up. He felt that the risk of "detail" is "being locked in."
Paul recalled a previous method to remediate the water quality of Duck Creek using an oyster reef, through George Heufelder's recommendation, and thought that the project declined due to political interest in sewering.
Lezli recalled that public comments received during the hearings of the past three years often cited community concern of degraded water quality and environmental impacts, and reminded board that she had provided summary of flip-chart notes from those hearings back in Sept. 2002, as basis of "Notice to Proceed" filing.
John moved that in addition to the next NRAB meeting be held with the Conservation Agent to determine ACEC process and plan, a following meeting be scheduled to further consider what actions the NRAB could take toward its third Town Meeting charge of identifying and protecting significant resources; Lezli seconded. Motion was accepted by vote of 5 - 0.
Lezli announced that she had not sworn in to the HPG, not participated in the planning of the Harbor Plan - and after seeking the advice of the State Ethics Committee, she felt there was a conceivable appearance of conflict of interest for her to do that direct work on the marina half of the planning. She stated that it had been known to previous compositions of the board but she will now declare that she holds part-time, seasonal employment (10 weeks of year, 20 hours a week) for Wellfleet Marine Corp. in retail sales, and this information has been filed with the Town Clerk's office. She encouraged other board members that may have conflicts to also seek the opinion of the State Ethics Commission and also make declarations and filings as may be necessary.
John asked if such practice is followed - how many have filed? He commented that with people "wearing so many hats" in a small town, he didn't see this as necessary. Helen Wilson and Dale Donovan both spoke to the increasing expectation that process is followed in encouragement that board members consider their own potential conflicts. Lezli pointed out that his earlier comments about work on water quality with Audubon, an agency that has actively commented on the plan process, may indicate his own need to contact the Ethics commission, as would anyone working for or related to such a stakeholder in the marina plan.
Doug motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:20, Lezli seconded. Vote 5 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Lezli Rowell
| 