Lyme Conservation Commission
Public Hearing Minutes
April 21, 2008
The public hearing was called to order at 7:30 by Chair Matt Stevens. The following members of the Commission attended the entire meeting: Russell Hirschler, Dick Jones, Lee Larson, Blake Allison, James Graham and Matt Stevens.
The following members of the public attended the meeting: Francesca Latawiec, Dina Cutting, Robert Couture, Tom Yurkowsky, Lou-Anne Conroy, Jonathan Sachs, Ross McIntyre, Charles Balch, Priscilla Power, Peter McGowan, Kathleen Henriques, Judy Barker, Andrea Colgan, Cindy Swart, Tom Morrissey, Meg Russell, Peter Walsh, Julie McCutchen, Paul and Joyce Killebrew, Tom Turkington, Scott Steffey, Nick and Phyllis Oren.
Dina Cutting distributed copies of the draft revised Post Pond Water Release policy. Matt explained that the purpose of the public hearing was to hear public comments regarding revisions to the Post Pond Water Release policy. He then gave a quick synopsis of the proposed changes to the policy and opened the floor to discussion.
Dick mentioned that the Town has received a permit from Fish and Game to carry out the policy as presented.
Ross McIntyre asked why section A. ii. provides May 30 as the date after which breaches can take place, but section B. ii. provides April 30.
Lee answered that the modification should be made so that the dates are both April 30 and he will move to make that change in the meeting that follows.
Lou-Anne Conroy asked if the Recreation Commission was in the habit of fertilizing the field. Dina Cutting said no, and didn’t expect there would be any need to fertilize provided it was properly aerated.
Jonathan Sachs asked if someone could summarize the issues that led to the revised policy. Matt offered that high water events have had a negative affect on the playing field and beach. He explained that the Rec. Commission hired Pathways Consulting to propose a fix and that Pathways suggested that by raising the level of the playing field a foot, and keeping the pond level at 2.0 feet on the Town’s gage, the field would remain dry and more beach would be available. Lee offered that the C.C. was responding directly to the overwhelming vote at Town Meeting that required the C.C. to adopt a policy that tried to keep the pond level at 2.0 feet.
Jonathan Sachs asked what are the potential downsides of revising the policy. Matt explained that disrupting the beaver habitat is potentially detrimental to the wetland. Wide fluctuations in the water level that might come about through breaches are detrimental to both the flora and fauna that rely on the wetland habitat. Lee offered that the loons that nested last year nested in a site that might not be available with a lower water level. Matt also suggested that breaching will cause the beavers to seek and destroy more live material to rebuild their dams but it’s unknown to what degree this will affect the habitat. Matt also suggested that the beavers might begin constructing another dam if they are continually thwarted.
Nick Oren asked if, when the breaches occurred in the past, the beavers built new dams. Judy Barker said no. Dick Jones said that the beavers have, however, moved from one to the other of the two existing dams.
James offered that up until recently the C.C. was operating under assumption that we weren’t allowed to manipulate the dams until the water went over 3.0 feet.
Ross McIntyre disputed the claim that beavers have been beneficial in shaping the landscape by creating valleys with rich agricultural soils. He said he saw many valleys in New Zealand with rich agriculture where there were no beavers.
Lou-Anne Conroy disputed the suggestion that beavers were protected so that they could create rich valley floors. She said she had always understood they were protected because of the beneficial wetlands and habitat they create.
James offered that beavers are an integral part of the ecology and help support a diverse habitat.
Dina said that recreation is an integral part of the town and thanked the commission for drawing up a revised policy.
Judy Barker said the wildlife has changed at Post Pond over the years.
Tom Turkington asked why there were two parts to the policy, one set of regulations for the Town and another set for others. Lee explained that the law demands the distinction between the property owner (the town) and other interested parties. Dick explained that the permit granted by Fish and Game is to the Town, not to other interested parties.
Tom Turkington asked about property owners down stream. Could they breach dams that might appear on Clay brook? Dick said the regulations are written to protect property owners downstream from having their property flooded and/or eroded by sudden breaches. As far as property owners wanting to breach dams that might appear further downstream, those property owners would have to get their own permits.
Blake Allison asked if frequent breaching might have a negative affect on tree stands and other flora in the area. Matt said there will be an effect, we can’t know how much and whether it will be good or bad.
Bob Couture said they will harvest the timber anyway, whether or not there are breaches.
Judy Barker claimed that the property owners only own to the middle of the brook and that this policy therefore only pertains to half of the beaver dam and that other land owners would have to get their own permission from Fish and Game. Dick said, that’s right.
Ross McIntyre suggested that the current Beaver Deceivers appear to be working pretty well and asked if there was a plan to set them lower. Matt answered that yes, that’s the plan.
Charles Balch said that after leaving Town Meeting he felt old because someone suggested that the beavers had been there for hundreds of years, but that he can remember a time when no beavers were there.
Matt asked if there were any more comments and if not then he’d like to adjourn the public hearing.
The public hearing was adjourned at 8:02.
Respectfully submitted,
James Graham
recorder pro tem
| 
