Loading...
Message to Conservation Commission, pursuant to MCCC's proposed 2021 Management Plan renewal.pdfTo: Sarah LaValley Northampton Office of Planning & Sustainability Northampton Conservation Commission From: Marcy Clark, 84 Williams St Devin Clark, 94 Williams St Date: October 11, 2021 Subject: Montview Management Plan 2021 – Conservation Commission, October 14, 2021 Dear Conservation Commission members: I respectfully request that the Conservation Commission table all formal consideration of the proposed 2021 Management Plan renewal for three critical and interrelated reasons: 1. MCCC’s inadequate and unsatisfactory efforts to notify neighbors (abutting neighbors, in particular) of the renewal process, and invite neighbor feedback and input into the 2021 renewal plan. Sarah LaValley sent an email to my family (dated June 16, 2016) that was clear on this topic: “As part of the Commission's landowner hat, the CR held by MCCC on Montview requires that MCCC will help provide the structure and process for discussing land management decisions with abutters, the immediate neighborhood, and the public based on any Management Plan and MOU between MCCC and the City approved by the ConsCom. An ecological plan for the entire area could certainly be a part of that larger discussion.” From 2019-2021, my family has repeatedly asked MCCC and OPS for the management plan evaluation and renewal drafting process to be transparent and inclusive (please see attached synopsis of these communications). Sadly, we have received no invitation to participate nor communication from MCCC at any point during the management plan renewal proposal process; last week I learned from Sarah LaValley that the Montview Management Plan was on ConsCom’s October 14th meeting agenda. In short, the renewal plan that you have received from MCCC reflects no effort whatsoever to invite feedback or input from most of the abutting neighbors residing on Williams St (i.e., 80-82, 84, 86, 90, 94 Williams St). o I would request that MCCC document the actions they have taken to communicate anything about the current management plan proposal to the abutting neighbors (or others), or to engage them in the process. When and how has MCCC proactively notified the neighbors of the upcoming renewal process? When and how has MCCC proactively shared management plan contents and/or invited neighbor feedback/input? MCCC must be responsible and accountable for proactively sharing and discussing any part of the draft plan with neighbors, and proactively communicating about the upcoming renewal of the management plan. No abutting neighbor should have to ask -- directly, repeatedly – to be informed of any of these plans or processes. That strategy effectively suppresses meaningful neighbor engagement and accountability. 2. The proposed 2021 plan reflects a substantive change away from the passive recreation priority, which was not shared, discussed or vetted with abutting neighbors (including my family). The proposed 2021 plan has deleted nearly all mention of the value and intentions of providing opportunities for passive recreation on the large, undeveloped, western portion of the land. This is an alarming revision and shift away from the original intent of the Conservation Restriction. The approved 2016 plan included the following visitor benefits/obligations specific to the western area; the gray shaded portions are glaringly absent from the 2021 proposal: o Mgmt Unit 1 – Wet Meadow and 20’ Buffer  Objective: Provide visitor access for viewing and crossing the wetland  Action 2: Mowing and maintenance of a walking trail and two wetland-viewing spots.  Action 5: Installation of a foot-bridge for access o Mgmt Unit 2 – Woodland Edge  Objective: Maintain the walking trails  Action 2: Continued mowing of 6’ walking trails o Mgmt Unit 3 – Wildlife Meadows  Objective: Create a safe and inviting place for passive recreation  Objective: Maintain 6’ wide mowed trails  Action 2: Mowing of 6’ wide walking trails The 2021 proposal offers no explanation or rationale for any of those exclusions; indeed, unless one carefully compares the two management plans, it is very easy to overlook the omissions altogether. Again, if there had been some form of open, transparent forum for reviewing and discussing this proposal during its creation, it is arguable that any of these exclusions would have been endorsed or approved. 3. The 2021 proposal fails to address some important management concerns, some of which have been brought to MCCC’s attention both during the prior 2016-2019 term and after its expiration. The 2016 management plan has been ineffective in restoring the wetland meadow to its original state, as intended when it was originally preserved. The change in condition to the land since its acquisition has been stark. The proposed 2021 plan does not include any assessment of the effectiveness of the 2016 plan to date, and therefore no evidence to inform continued or new priorities/objectives. For example: o Trees continue to encroach upon many portions of the land, including the wetland area (Unit 1) specifically. The now-shady standing water has become an ideal incubation pond for mosquitos, which have reached nearly oppressive levels in recent summers. My family has expressed concerns about the health of the wetland to MCCC (2019, 2021), including a suggestion to evaluate whether the vegetation that has been allowed to grow unchecked in the wetland portion has had an adverse effect on the nature of the wetlands, with particular concern about the substantial trees that now stand right in the middle of the wet area. o (June, 2019) Wayne Feiden invited representatives from OPS, MCCC and Clark family to meet and walk the western property, primarily to resolve conflicts regarding walking trails, maintenance, and private property lines. Wayne Feiden’s follow-up email (dated 6/27/2019) successfully resolved the conflict, and also advised MCCC to “…get the wetlands marked and get a new determination from the conservation commission. (Determinations are good for three years and then expire.)…Besides the immediate benefits for the trail, getting the wetlands flagged will help in a discussion next year when the MCCC management plan and agreement expires and we need a new one.” As of this writing, the wetlands have not been marked or flagged. There are other concerns that would benefit from abutting neighbors’ review also, for example: o There has been an enormous brush pile at the northern end of Unit 3 since 2016; now there’s a second large brush pile within Unit 2. The first pile was never intended to be a permanent feature of the property; the second has emerged during the 2016-19 management term. At best, these brush piles are unsightly; at worst – and of greater concern to abutting residents – they pose dangerous fire hazards. A former ConsCom member who visited the site prior to the first management plan proposal and approval, made the same observation and expressed alarm. To date, no action has been taken to correct this issue; in fact, neighbors apparently have been encouraged to continue adding debris to these piles. Neighbors’ concerns about this matter should be considered and properly addressed before the 2021 proposal is finalized. o There is lack of clarity regarding the “low shrubs” that are mentioned in Unit 3 management. If MCCC is sincere about managing and maintaining passive recreation, visitor access, and wetlands and Holyoke mountain range viewing among the core values of the property (which indeed, the current proposal calls into question), then they must be explicit about the height and size of low shrubs that are acceptable to that end. In closing, it is my hope that MCCC be held responsible and accountable to all abutting neighbors in the ongoing review and development of all management plans, objectives and actions. At critical moments, such as this proposal renewal, MCCC must actively seek feedback and input from abutting neighbors, as well as other impacted neighbors. This would include hosting meetings, with a special point of reaching out to all abutting neighbors – e.g., door-to-door outreach, notices posted prominently on abutting streets, flyers in each abutter’s front door handle, etc. It is incumbent upon MCCC in general, and its liaison in particular, to initiate communications and extend outreach efforts evenly and fairly to all impacted neighbors – even those that they may deem “confrontational,” or disengaged, or possibly even disenfranchised. The responsibility, the obligation and the onus is on MCCC.