Text Box: final CONSERVATION COMMISSION

Minutes OF July 19, 2007

                                                                                               

 

 

Conservation Commission members present: Chris Giordano (Chairperson), Judy Jervis, and Michele Tingley.

 

Forestry Committee members present: Curt Springer, Chris Lauria, Dave Knight, and Betsy Sanders.

 

Also present: Wally Fries, (Philip Emilio and Joe Luna were present for a short time.)

 

The meeting opened at 7:45 and was televised.

 

This was a joint meeting with Forestry to discuss differences between the two committees and to work toward solutions.  Wally began by explaining that he sees an intersection of interest with the two committees as well as Heritage and it’s his opinion that everyone is of good will.  Resolution of any conflict is important for the common good and communication between groups and individuals is the first step toward resolutions.

 

Wally gave his professional opinion that in resolving issues it’s common to find that the parties involved have common interests which need to be identified.  He explained that within those interests there are things that are acceptable and things that are simply tolerable.  Everyone will have their own opinion which someone may not agree with but can find bearable.  Any differences need to be addressed without rancor or anger since this is not a debating club.  In fact, the ill-will between the two groups may discourage public involvement.  He explained that we need to have positive, constructive discussions working toward the common good of the town.

 

He asked for and made a list of items of conflict between the two committees.  Trying to sub-categorize these within the Easement, Forest Management Plan, and the Stewardship Plan was a little difficult since they all blend into each other.  The following is a list Wally produced on a large pad of paper for everyone to see.  Brief explanations follow each listing.

 

§    Easement

§    Process - joint meetings: Curt was of the opinion that joint meetings feel like a Conservation meeting to which others are simply invited.

§    Changes in context: editing of legal documents is not done with continuity or ease in tracking the history of the change or the thought process behind it.

§    Continuity of addressing issues: items will be worked on, and then tabled for a while.  With the changeover in people on committees, action items could be better concluded if more expediency were used.  Curt explained that items are pursued with diligence when they are pursued, but then it’s subject to the priority list of the group.  It’s taken up and a certain amount of headway is made, then it’s put aside.

§    ATV’s: should they be forbidden from the town forest or not?  There were various opinions about this as well as questions about Audubon’s stance on the issue.

§    Stewardship Plan: how to create this;

§    Shooting: does this mean target practice, hunting, what’s allowed and what isn’t;

§    Pond level: This can have a variety of subcategories with which to discuss: how do you do this, how much, where, etc.

§    Forest Management Plan: specifically regarding setbacks, wetlands, the amount of cutting, the areas of cutting, the Wildlife Action Plan, bringing balance between cutting and conservation.  Dave commented that Emily Brunkhurst pointed out that the FMP vacillates between attention on wildlife to an attention on maximizing forest value.  He said the committees really need to address what the forest is being managed for: is it a wildlife reserve, a park or something to get revenue from?

§    setbacks (wetlands)

§    Invasive species not being addressed in the Easement

§    Commercial

§    Goals and Objectives: Wally explained that this needs to be the number one on the list.

§    Wildlife

§    Trails: being carved into the land without first knowing what impact it might make on wildlife, etc.;

§    Roles and Responsibilities

§    Public Input: How do we get this?

 

It was pointed out that the Forestry Committee is concerned with 400+ acres of the town forest, whereas the Conservation Committee has the whole town to consider.  Regarding roles and responsibilities, it was pointed out that the two committees need to be in agreement what their respective responsibilities are.  Dave pointed out that in his experience he finds the biggest obstacle to coming together on goals and objectives is fighting over procedural issues.  Wally pointed out that the various committees should always be striving for a consensus and work in concert with each other.

 

Dave said that the main focus should be agreed on before anything else will be able to fall into place.  Once the main focus is established, goals in support of that can be agreed upon and then other issues can be evaluated based on whether they are in support of the primary goal.

 

The issue of when to have a meeting was discussed.  Several members are on various committees and time is precious.  If the meeting is set for the regular time for a Conservation Commission meeting, sometimes members of other committees are not able to attend.  Several options were discussed.  One was that joint meetings alternate between the regular Forestry meeting time and Conservation’s regular time.  It was also proposed by Wally that sub-committees (one member from Forestry and one from Conservation) be formed to work on items and hopefully come to a resolution which would then be brought to the other committee members.  He suggested an action plan with a schedule and itinerary.