Natural Resource Advisory Board Minutes (Approved 5 / 13 / 03)
4/l/03 TOWNHALL, 7 PM
PRESENT: Paul Conor, John Riehl, Doug Franklin, Lezli Rowell.
EXCUSED: Glenn Shields, birthday.
Doug opened the meeting at 7:07 PM, and Lezli Moved that in Glenn's absence, Paul should chair the meeting. Doug seconded, voted 4 - 0.
It was noted that the meeting was specifically scheduled to meet with Emily Beebe, the Conservation Agent, to hear of her activities toward an ACEC Resource Plan, and seek her input toward the NRAB's contribution to that planning process. John felt that the meeting had been scheduled specifically to hear from the CA for issue identification purposes, and regretted her absence, and lack of notice regarding it.
In considering the agenda prepared by Lezli, Doug agreed with the content but had a few organizational items to suggest first Doug moved that the next NRAB meeting be scheduled **(May 13, 2003) after the Annual Town Meeting, for the purpose of board re-organization, to elect a Chair, Vice-chair and Secretary, and discuss the next year's priorities and develop procedure.
Lezli seconded, and discussed the bullet points prepared for the Intertidal, Shoreline and Natural Resources chapters of the 1995 Harbor Management Plan as well as the Water Quality chapter as continued agenda for that meeting.
Paul questioned where, and into what document, would these chapters even belong - and relayed to the advisory board the position proffered by Suzanne Thomas of the Harbor Planning Group that the ACEC Resource Plan would be administered by the Conservation Commission to the exclusion of the NRAB's purview. He commented that from the HPG perspective, the 1995 HMP does not exist, compared to the NRAB perspective that its content has been split into two planning
processes. Paul questioned why the Conservation Agent was not present as requested by the NRAB to explain the various meetings she has held with the towns of Eastham, Truro and the CCNS, beginning some ACEC process.
Doug agreed with the frustration of feeling left out of the ACEC half of the NRAB's charge.
Paul noted that while a pared-down Shellfish plan appeared to be moving forward, all that was left of the NRAB's charge for the HMP are the Marina and Public Access components - and he felt the loss of considering species habitats, tidal and shore land use issues and the water quality amounts to a "gutting" of the Town Meeting charge for the board.
The motion was amended by Lezli and seconded by John to schedule an NRAB meeting (June 3, 2003) - and that the Water Quality chapter will be added to the re-organizational agenda items for the May meeting, with the Natural Resources, Intertidal and Shoreline chapters to be the June meeting's agenda. The amended motion was accepted; the vote favored the motion 4 - 0.
Referring to the agenda prepared, Lezli highlighted her bullet points for the Intertidal and Shoreline chapters, noting priority for the Intertidal may be to recommend an inventory of tideland ownerships' to be able to categorize uses, and for the Shoreline chapter an emphasis in reviewing the regulatory permitting procedures in place to be able to craft recommendations. She encouraged the board to take the bullet points under advisement, consider the existing 1995 chapter texts, and be willing to move forward at the June NRAB meeting.
John noted that he had a similar process in mind, to essentially "audit" the 1995 Plan, which he felt the NRAB retains "ownership" of. He considered the Water Quality chapter impressive, and thought the process ought to be a review of the recommendations made within each chapter, note which have been implemented, whether the measures have been successful, and define what
actions should be taken next? This seemed the basic method of updating, to contribute the identified chapters toward an ACEC Plan.
Lezli noted that the implementation had been difficult as the 1995 Plan had been authored by the NRAB with little or none of the Town Meeting expected ASSISTANCE from staff, so when the resulting recommendations were forwarded to the various departments, there was little interest or feeling of involvement of follow through. She saw the current HPG as the opposite extreme, equally unworkable, as the staff DIRECTED process suffers the same feeling of minimalizing involvement - particularly where the ACEC Plan appears to be progressing without the NRAB's consideration. She would prefer the middle ground: reverting to the Town Meeting-defined process for the updating of the 1995 HMP chapters.
Paul remarked that he is not comfortable with the present climate of expecting "consensus" or the intention to divide the NRAB's charge into separate plans submitted to the CZM (HMP) and DEM(ACEC).
Lezli stated that she does not accept the division of the board's purview or loss of 1995 HMP content; she reminded the board of their affirmative vote of 2/4/03 that "both the Harbor Planning Group 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 Board of Selectmen, Town Meeting or State Agency."
The board agreed.
Paul thought the advisory board may need legal advice.
Lezli explained that the two DEP Departments DEM and CZM) are traditionally at odds in their priorities, and dividing local content into two divergent certification processes loses the Town's advantage of covering the spectrum in one management plan. (DEM permitting and priorities regard environmental concerns: CZM permitting and priorities regard marina and infrastructure issues). It has been expressed to her at the state level that the opposing departmental interests are frequently a problem, from the resource protection point of view.
Lezli encouraged that the NRAB proceed with its chapter audits and fully expects that resulting review to be the board's contribution toward the ACEC Plan, and that any Cons Com-generated contribution be submitted to the NRAB for consideration.
John moved that the audit of 1995 HMP Chapters II (Water Quality), III (Natural Resources), IV (Intertidal Land Use) and VII (Shoreline Land Use) will have the purpose of identifying the state of the issues and developing a forward action plan. Lezli seconded. Discussion reverted to John's concern that Emily had not participated in this meeting, the community concern of what process would be followed and the observation that the Conservation Agent appeared "spread too thin" if she has time to attend meetings with other towns but not the NRAB. Doug expressing that Lezli should be appointed to investigate what the intended ACEC Resource Plan might be, and report back to the NRAB. (There were suggestions pertaining to the mortality of all lawyers expressed - with CONSENSUS). Lezli responded she felt that
the first step of such a directive would be to research which CMRs guide an ACEC Plan process, such as that 301 CMR 23 guides the Harbor Plan process, and that she would contact DEM. John felt that she should follow up with a consultation with the Conservation Agent as well. Lezli agreed to take the charge, but called for the vote to the motion first; motion passed 4 - 0.
Paul noted that most of the past years' activities had been more political than productive. John contended that he views the NRAB as significant contributors to the ACEC Plan, if not parallel to the Cons Com at least as useful. He reiterated disappointment with Emily's absence and the general state of uncertainty regarding the NRAB's role in the ACEC Plan given that this meeting
had been specifically scheduled to address these issues. He asked Lezli if she would be willing to investigate and report back to the board, and Doug further queried whether Lezli ought to be moved as the board's delegate or liaison to the Conservation Agent?
Lezli then expressed anxiety that being appointed a "delegate" concerned her if the intended process may involve delegates of the other towns and agencies being appointed to a working group, similar to the HPG - and she questioned giving away deliberation of Wellfleet's resource interest to equal votes of those other towns and agencies. She read the 2000 campaign mailing of Selectman Roger Putnam, calling for a Harbor Plan that "Joins with Mass. Audubon Society, the National Seashore and the towns of Eastham and Truro to develop ... a comprehensive resource management plan for Wellfleet Harbor ..." and she noted that this is the actions that the Conservation Agent appears to be carrying out. The board considered the delineation of the ACEC designation on the map displayed in the hearing room,
and noted how trivial the land areas of the Truro and Eastham portions of the ACEC were, and did not support giving away equal status in planning for Wellfleet's resources.
John moved that Lezli shall be directed to investigate what State regulations guide an ACEC Resource Plan process, if any, or what process of management plan process the town intends to follow - to report back to the NRAB at next meeting. Lezli seconded. Discussion included Paul of political motives produced when process is not held in the open, reminded the board that the "staff-led" process of divided HMP and ACEC Plan originated from a private meeting with the now-resigned Shellfish Constable, the Conservation Agent and a CZM agent. Lezli affirmed preference for an open participatory process. Paul wondered what had ever become of the sediment studies which originated from the NRAB, with Don Lewis steering, meant to support a natural resource inventory and habitat definitions? He noted
that the politics of the past year may have lost a valid scientific project. However, from the audience, Abbey Franklin, of Audubon, relayed that data had been collected by Tony Wilbur of CZM using a prototype "Roxanne" tow, and Mark Adams, GIS specialist from the CCNS will contribute to interpreting the data. She reported that preliminary findings had been given to Constable Walton, and expressed willingness to forward copy of final report to the NRAB when it becomes available.
John remarked that it astonished him that the last published biological survey of Wellfleet Harbor was performed in 1972 by Division of Marine Fisheries.
Lezli recalled the motion on the table and called the vote; approved 4 - 0.
John and Doug handed out their prepared bullet points to be considered in regard to the Natural Resources chapter.
Lezli returned to the agenda and prepared materials, reminding the board of the interest expressed in September, 2002 of looking at pondshore environmental impacts. She recalled that she and the Conservation Agent had made a site inspection, noting many areas of unpermitted removal of wetlands vegetation, vista pruning and structures - and she had provided the agent with a written
inventory of all pondshore lots in Wellfleet, with the expectation of the Cons Com sending out an informational letter to owners regarding permitting of wetlands and buffer zone activities. Lezli had later provided inventory to Cons Com chair, Cyndi Moe, who also favored engaging property owners for compliance rather than beginning enforcement proceedings, and welcomed
Lezli's suggested language for such a letter. Discussion included an endorsement of a letter to property owners as a follow up to the concerns expressed in September to be timely for Spring permitting, and the way in which similar regulations, permitting and standards are held for more visible, harbor shore properties, and the unfortunate climate of fearing regulatory process by owners.
John agreed with the purpose of the proposed letter and wished it to begin with a discussion of the environmental value of protecting the pond resources before detailing the types of activities this requiring permitting, to avoid the sense of being confrontational. Lezli felt that this approach was far less confrontational than Health and Conservation enforcement orders she has seen, and wished to emphasize compliance. Paul noted the provision that the Department wished to provide user friendly service.
John moved to direct Lezli to notify the Cons Com chair of the NRAB's endorsement of the content, if not the style. Lezli seconded. Doug discussed the board supporting environmental regulation compliance, while Paul noted that pondshore property owners begrudge needing permits to clear the view of the pond that they are taxed for. Lezli responded that where there is no water view, an owner could file for abatement from the Town Assessor if the property is misclassified. She continued that while the Wetlands Protection Act is administered to the harbor shore marine resource areas, and property owners could not get away with unpermitted vista pruning or seawall construction activities, the pond property owners may not be aware that jurisdiction includes freshwater resource areas requiring Cons Com permitting
of their alterations to wetland vegetation or dock constructions. The motion was voted, to support the intention of the proposed informational mailing to the inventoried pondshore property owners, 4 - 0.
John noted that he was Pleased that the group took consideration of natural resources to also include landscape features, and Lezli affirmed that while the more obvious and marketable shellfish resources gainer the most attention, is the board's charge to recognize a broad spectrum of natural resource interests.
Doug inquired about the petitioned articles going to Town Meeting regarding a Harbor Plan or ACEC Plan to be state certified, that these first secure a Town Meeting approval - he questioned the difference between the article calling for 2/3 majority vote and another calling for simple majority.
He wondered why the articles were necessary if the expectation is already that such plans go to Town Meeting?
Lezli responded regarding the article that she had authored, that while one would expect Town Meeting endorsement as natural to passing any "community-driven plan" to the state - she felt that a Town Meeting affirmation of this process was essential, after hearing Suzanne Thomas interpret that "the HPG's draft Harbor Management Plan (including Shellfish/Marina/Public Access) can go directly to the state without Town meeting's acceptance." Language was generally modeled after process of proposing amended zoning bylaw, requiring 2/3 approval by Town Meeting before submission to the Attorney General, and local implementation. John expressed that 213 gives too much voice to a minority. Doug asked whether the 1995 HMP, marked "draft," had been accepted by Town Meeting to which Lezli
responded that it had.
(Conversations with prior NRAB members confirm that acceptance of the LCP included the HMP). Paul recalled the limited copying budget and volunteer effort to collate the document; that they never took it up to recopy the HMP after Town Meeting accepted and filed with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, through CZM. He affirmed that the 1995 Harbor Management Plan for Wellfleet is an accepted document.
John preferred the petitioned article calling for simple majority, recalling filibustering of the civil rights acts during the 1960's. Doug also expressed preference for the simple majority as plan acceptance mechanism. Responding to concern of whether a proposed plan would be amended on Town Meeting floor, Lezli responded that while possible, it is more likely done in the public hearing
process leading up to town meeting consideration.
Doug commented that while six months ago he supported the use of an expanded group (the HPG) the Shellfish Constable has since resigned, and there are many questions regarding the process.
He expressed willingness to revisit the issue of state-certification and the role of the staff as FIPG.
Lezli commented that she had never favored state certification as necessary. Discussion included the perception that there would be state funds available if he plan was certified and the present state budget cutting rendering this "carrot" unlikely; the advantage of locally amplifying Chapter 91 permitting as non-existent, as Wellfleet has the most restrictive waterways permitting due to the ACEC designation (NO NEW OR EXPANDED CH. 91 PERMITS, ONLY REPLACEMENT OF
LIKE FOR LIKE) as well as the feeling that a large group wasn't working. Doug contended that the 1995 Plan contains a lot of useful material, that perhaps the next two scheduled meetings present the window of opportunity to reconsider the process set forth in motion.
Paul felt aggrieved that so much time has elapsed with the intention of doing precisely that - updating the existing plan - due to two Selectmen running their campaign platforms on getting a State certified HMP, but never initiating a BOS motion to do so. He reported being told that any NRAB attempt to revise the existing plan would be returned by the BOS, and when Lezli updated the board's worksheet to include the 301 CMR 23 process in July, 2002 - it is his conclusion that a panic from those political interests resulted in the breaking up of the Plan into two processes and the Board's dilution into the HPG. In short, just as the NRAB prepared to adopt state certification process, they were cut out. Lezli commented that this likely revolves around preference to regulate
the tidelands than to match scrutiny of regulation for the shore lands. Paul reminded the board that Truman Henson, specifically asked about securing funding, would not commit state funds to using the certification process. John felt that the work of the HPG had been productive, had covered a lot of ground.
Lezli moved that the NRAB approve the minutes of 9/5/02 as amended, 12/3/02 and
2/4/03. John seconded. There was no discussion. Motion voted affirmatively, 4-0.
Doug moved to adjourn at 9 PM, seconded by Lezli. Voted 4 - 0.
Respectfully submitted
Lezli Rowell
| 