Lyme Conservation Commission (LCC)
Minutes of the 2004-06-09 Public Hearing
LCC Members present: Lee Larson, Chair, Laura McDaniel, Adair Mulligan, Paul Klee, Joan Goldburgh, Vickie May, Richard Jones (Lyme Selectboard representative).
LCC Members absent: None.
Members of the Public attending: See separate attendance lists, attached.
1. The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:30 by Lee Larson.
2. Mr. Larson welcomed everyone and thanked them for coming. Board members were introduced. Mr. Larson reviewed the 2004 history of the beaver dam from a prepared outline (attached). Highlights included;
· May 3rd, 2004 - LCC asked three pond landowners to gather input and reach a consensus from landowners and present it to the LCC in regards to what course of action the LCC should take in regulating or not regulating the water level of the pond.
· May 12th, 2004 - Loch Lyme Lodge (LLL) requested permission to lower the water level by dismantling some of the beaver dams.
· May 17th, 2004 - LCC asked LLL to wait before taking any action to lower water for the following reasons:
o The May 3rd request by LCC to pond landowners to reach a consensus had not been met yet.
o The rain amount had been decreasing.
o LCC was unsure of any activity at the beaver dams and one dam already had large hole in it.
o Water level dropping more than an inch per day
o Two confirmed reports of loons on Post Pond
· May 22nd, 2004 - Land owner meeting to reach consensus water level was deemed futile.
3. At this point the Lyme Selectboard consulted with the Towns’ attorney who advised the writing and adoption of a specific water release policy before approving any dam manipulation. The notification of Public Hearing was posted according to law
4. In developing the policy the LCC recognizes at least four groups of shore land owners:
1. Don’t care about water level-not inclined to get involved
2. Don’t care about water level-leave the beavers alone
3. Care about the water level-keep as high as possible
4. Care about the water level-keep water reasonably low
5. The Draft for the Post Pond Water Level Policy attempts to meet all these needs. It may not be ideal for all but LCC hopes that landowners are willing to try the policy out.
6. The policy was drafted with the advice from the Town Attorney and an experienced individual in the Water Division of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, NHEDS.
7. Mr. Larson completed reading from his prepared statement by listing the ground rules for the public hearing:
1. Address comments to moderator.
2. Identify your self.
3. Keep comments in good taste.
4. Address questions to moderator.
5. Stay on topic.
6. Contain comments to five minutes or less.
7. Don’t repeat a long position statement.
8. Additional comments if time allows.
8. 7:40 P.M. Mr. Larson opened the floor to comments from the public. The following people addressed the LCC.
9. Mr. K.William Clauson - attorney for LLL, made the following arguments:
· Questioned if the Town, the Selectboard or the LCC had any legal authority to interfere in any way.
· As a Great Pond, the pond belongs to the State not the Town of Lyme.
· Policy is “wrong and mistaken.”
· Arguments in policy are wrong and self serving.
· The noted “normal” is artificially high.
· LLL has had a beach and regulated water for past 50 years.
· Town has abutter status only
· In 1982 the State did an investigation/survey and found that “normal level” allows for a beach at LLL.
· At that time (1982) Selectman Earl Strout concurred with the State’s findings and expressed understanding of the threat of a lawsuit if the State’s findings were not followed and that removal of beaver dams was not the prevue of the Town of Lyme and if the Town of Lyme interfered it would be placing themselves in a position for legal action to be taken against it.
· Barkers have a right to maintain a beach. This right has been established over a 50 year period in which they have always had a beach.
· State has a right to control the Pond level not the Town of Lyme.
Mr. Larson asked Mr. Clauson to clarify if his statement was a threat of a law suit.
Mr. Clauson stated that it was not a threat; it was an open statement in the forum.
10. Tom Morrissey-Post Pond Lane resident:
· Inquired about the 1982 State survey that Mr. Clauson referred to. Does it exist? Does anyone have a copy?
11. Lee Larson stated the Selectman had given management and authority of the Chaffee Wildlife Refuge area to the LCC and that the 1982 actions had been in-correct as they had been addressed to the Selectboard not the LCC.
12. Richard G. Jones states that the 1982 action was incorrect because it only addressed the Town of Lyme as abutters and not the other abutters to the beaver dams. He also stated that the Barkers don’t own the beach if Post Pond is a “great pond” if the area in question is underwater it is therefore a part of the state - owned Great Pond.
13. Richard G. Jones also spoke on behalf of Dorothy W. Sears, Jr., who expressed concerns that the water level not be determined by one or a small group of individuals and also wanted to clarify her strong desire that her conservation easements not be disturbed.
14. Hebe Quinton:
· LLL is on the market. If a policy is established will the privileges granted in the policy be passed along to the new owners?
15. Ross McIntyre – Post Pond land owner since the 1960’s:
· Recently restored a boat house on his property that is approximately 100 years old.
· The South end of the boat house was resting on a piece of ledge, using that level as a gauge, the boat house was restored as straight and level as possible.
· The bottom of the boat house may be above water level at some points.
· Over the years he has seen water levels go up and down, but concerned that as the beaver dams become larger, his boathouse may be knocked off its foundation for the first time in 100 years.
· Wants fall water levels to be consistent with not damaging his boat house during winter ice/spring thaw.
· Level that is best for his boat house is also the level at which LLL has a beach.
16. Charles Balch - Family has been Post Pond land owners since 1860’s:
· Seen water level raise and fall over the years, as high as to allow canoeing up to the lifeguard shack and no sandy beach area until the water decreased over the summer.
· Fluctuation due to natural causes. No beavers 70 years ago and yet the water still rose and fell.
· Understands why LLL wants a beach but has some reservations about humans intervening with nature.
17. Reggie Rogers-Family Post Pond land owners since 1946:
· Concerned about the possibility of pond being too low. Has seen this before and it resulted in the fish population getting sick and dying, and increased bacteria in the pond water.
· Since beavers have been there the pond has not been too low.
· Low water level needs to be addressed as much as high water level.
18. Elaine Emery:
· Since the retaining wall draws the line, should LLL remove the wall and re-grade the lawn to allow for natural fluctuations in the water level?
19. Paul Barker - Owner LLL:
· There has always been a wall. The old wall eroded over the years; LLL went through the proper channels to re-build the wall.
20. K.William Clauson:
· Has three letters supporting his earlier position statement and if anyone wants to review the 1982 reports, they should call his office for copies.
21. Tom Morrissey:
· On the first page of draft policy, paragraph II factual findings; all but one number is incorrect.
22. Richard Jones - LCC:
· Clarified that the average listed refers to the weather service average and not the average of the specific data listed.
23. Tom Morrissey:
· Inquired as to the source of the cubic feet per second (cfs) data noted in the draft policy.
· Inquired as to how the recommended 6”x10’ breach calculation was made.
· Asked what the state meant when they require a “slow release”, and what is this requirement based on.
24. Richard Jones:
· Responded that the cfs data came from Pathways Consulting, Town engineers.
· Stated the breach recommendation was made based on experience; deep enough so the beavers can’t re-build overnight. Last year some breaches were made that were too deep.
25. Lee Larson - LCC:
· An agent from NHDES reviewed the data for both active and inactive beaver dams and felt it unnecessary to specify the differences in the pond and that the 6”x10’ would cover both scenarios.
· The agent from Pathways Consulting felt that this breach level would accomplish about half the flow as their recommended beaver pipes.
26. Ross McIntyre:
· In regards to the 2” measurement (referenced in the draft policy); beaver dams are not level. How are we going to determine a 2” mark?
27. Lee Larson:
· If we are “in flood” (ie; water going over the top of the beaver dam) it doesn’t make sense to breach and when it’s generally down 2” then it will be time to take action.
28. Alan Newton – Post Pond land owner:
· The hydrology of the pond is very complex. There is no provision for an annual review or some other time frame for review written into the policy.
29. Hebe Quinton:
· How are the “two people” (as noted in draft policy), going to be designated?
· Has there been any thought to how the public would be notified in the event of a breach? The pond dropped 18” quite suddenly last June and created environmental havoc. There may not be enough time for a legal posting but can there be an informal notification of some sort?
30. Lee Larson:
· It will not be someone from LCC; it will be from the requestor or the requestors’ agent. LCC will be in an observer status only.
· LCC will discuss notification at the special meeting following the public hearing.
31. Jay Cary:
· Notification of downstream people is important to make them aware of possible flooding or rushing water.
32. Dwayne Compton – Post Pond land owner:
· How frequently over the past few years have the dams been breached?
· Who has the authority to determine what the water level is?
33. Lee Larson:
· The LCC has installed a gauge at the state boat landing. That will be used for the measurements.
34. Richard Jones:
· I went out at least four times last summer and I believe Paul Barker went once or twice.
35. Elaine Emery:
· Last summer the decision was made by the LCC to allow the Barkers (LLL) to let water out, why are we having this discussion now?
· How did the level of “normal” get determined at the post at the boat landing?
36. Lee Larson:
· My understanding is that the issue that most concerns the town’s attorney is the lack of written guidelines that spell out the policy; this meeting is a step in getting a written policy in place.
· We measured the water at the Barker’s (LLL) and made an educated measurement that allows the LLL to have a safe water level but not so low as to not allow for evaporation.
37. Richard Jones:
· There will be no breaching between January and April for safety reasons.
38. Lee Larson asked if there were any more questions.
39. Richard Jones reiterated that the idea of an annual review is a good idea and it will give LCC more time to develop a correlation between rainfall and pond level.
40. Hebe Quinton:
· Annual review is key. The owners of the LLL next year may have different priorities.
41. Paul Barker expressed his thanks to the LCC for all its hard work.
42. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. by Mr. Larson.
Respectfully Submitted,
Elise A. Garrity
Scribe
Attachments:
(1) Chair’s Opening Statement
(2) List of Attendees
Attachment (1)
Chair’s Introductory Statement
Please sign the sheet on the clip board which is circulating around so we'll have a record of who is here.
Introduce CC Members
Brief Statement outlining how we got here:
May 3: Anticipating requests for beaver dam manipulation this summer, CC decided at its regular meeting to ask 3 pond land owners to convene a meeting of all interested people who owned shoreland property to see if they could give us guidance as to a consensus water level that would maybe not be ideal; but would be acceptable to most or all.
May 12: Request from LLL to, lower water level by dismantling some of the beaver dam.
May 17: CC asked LLL to wait; meeting requested on May 3 had not taken place; previous 4 months had been drier than normal, pond level was such that there was only about 4" of water at the retaining wall of LLL, water level was dropping more than 1” per day, beaver dam did not seem to be active and had a large hole in it already, and there were two confirmed reports of loons on the pond.
May 22: Land owner meeting to try to reach a consensus water level was deemed futile.
By now this issue was receiving a lot of public attention, and the Selectmen requested advice from the town's attorney. The summary of this advice was: CC needed a water release policy before approving any dam manipulation, and such a policy could only be adopted after a public hearing. A public hearing requires advance notice of 12 days, and this hearing is being held 13 days from the time that advice got to the CC.
In the meantime, late May's above normal rainfall fell on nearly saturated ground from the spring melt, and the pond level rose about a foot. Even though the water level then may have justified a partial beaver dam manipulation, following the attorney's advice we could not reconsider the LLL request of May 12. As of this morning the water level was back to its mid-May value.
In developing policy, realized at least 4 groups of shoreland owners: (Specify). We have attempted to arrive at the consensus that we requested from the land owners in early May, while being sensitive to the ecological issues in the pond's watershed. It may not be ideal for anyone, but we're hopeful that most shoreland owners are willing to give it a try. In developing the policy we had an earlier draft reviewed by the town's attorney and by an experienced staff person in the water division of NHDES. We took their input into account in developing the final draft. This draft policy is before you for comments and questions.
You will see the draft policy is in several sections. We are happy to explain its makeup I fit is confusing to you.
Ground rules:
1. Please address comments to the hearing's moderator, not to each other. Please introduce yourself before speaking.
2. Comments are to be in good taste; remarks are to be civil, with no personal attacks, derogatory comments, etc.
3. Please address questions to the moderator. I will find someone on the CC to answer.
4. Since this is a hearing to hear comments and questions on the draft policy, please confine your remarks to this topic. Please don’t be offended if I ask you to get back to this topic if you wander away from it.
5. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less the first time you are called on. We will ask you to finish your statement if you run over. This way everyone who wants to speak will have a chance. If time allows and you have more to say, we may be able to recognize you a second time, but we'll have to see how it goes.
6. It will help us get through all this if you don't repeat things that have already been said. "I agree with Jack's position" rather than repeating everything Jack has said will help us a lot.
Attachment (2)
List of Attendees
| 
