HANSON – Sometimes when you want a seat at the table, you have to set the table yourself.
The Select Board had made their expectation and demand – during a September meeting with the state DEP and the EPA – for a seat at the decision-making table regarding the cleanup at the former National Fireworks factory site, were left wanting when the next joint informational meeting was scheduled in Hanover, at that town’s insistence.
“Hanover is still pinpointed to have the forum, but I also asked the question if they could have a second forum, possibly in Hanson, for people who could not make the first one,” said Town Administrator Lisa Green told the board on Tuesday, Nov. 7.
While Hanson officials will be attending a January 2024 session in Hanover – and encourage residents to attend – Hanson officials will also be insisting on a separate meeting in Hanson, which the other communities are also invited to attend.
They are also putting it in writing, to the DEP and Gov. Maura Healey.
The DEP and EPA had discussed having a community forum involving the towns of Hanson, Hanover and Pembroke to provide an update on the site cleanup for residents.
“In working with Hanover to try to get this scheduled, we were narrowing in on a date in December to have the forum in Hanover, unfortunately, we just got an email from the EPA that due to some timing issues and conflicts, they have to move the community meeting to January,” Green said.
“Ms. Green told me it was going to be in Hanover, and I said, ‘And here we go again,” said Chair Laura FitzGerald-Kemmett. “Were we not clear with the folks who were here before that we want to have a seat at the table. That Hanson needs to be taken seriously, that Hanover’s been driving the bus the whole time?”
Green reached out to Hanover, finding that town’s manager to be “let’s say, reluctant – non-cooperative, maybe” to have the forum in Hanson FitzGerald-Kemmett said. She asked Green to bring the matter to the board in case it was just her that felt this way.
She was not alone.
“I’m right there with you,” said Select Board member Ann Rein.
“Can we take the reins and just say we’ll schedule a time [and have a forum]?” Select Board member Ed Heal asked.
There have been separate public meetings before.
“But I really thought it would be nice to show a partnership and collaboration,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said. “Cleary, that was a bit overly optimistic on my part.”
Green said that the one night that works for the EPA and DEP may not work for town officials and residents, so it is hoped that having a second session in Hanson might fill the need for all towns.
“You’re being extremely diplomatic,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said.
“We were all on the same page, trying to not only be as collaborative and inclusive as possible with those two particular towns, but with other towns that also might not have been considered that also wanted to have a voice,” Vice Chair Joe Weeks said, asking if Hanson should communicate their request in writing for a more prominent seat.
“Different people learn in different ways,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said. “Perhaps [one] is not an auditory learner, so we’ll put it in writing to you.”
Heal argued the need to “really push the governor at the same time as the DEP.”
While Green said collaboration was important, she agree with FitzGerald-Kemmett that such overtures to Hanover had been rebuffed in the past and that town seemed to be digging in its heels on the point now. While she would be glad to reach out to the chair of Hanover’s board, Hanson wants to have more equal role as the cleanup gets closer to its backyard.
“Hanover can only take the lead if the DEP lets them,” she said.
“We’re at the table, but it’s not in equal seats,” Weeks agreed. Hanson should start leading and inviting other towns to come to them.
While Conservation Agent Frank Schellenger and Health Agent Gil Amado also agreed with taking a stronger stance, but argued it was very important not to exclude themselves from the Hanover meeting.
The Select Board members also plan on going to the Hanover meeting.
“That town has been more invested on a regular basis,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said. “I think they probably have more citizens that have been following this more closely than we probably have. … We’re a little late to the game.”
About a bear
In other business, the Select Board moved to clarify the Police Department’s options regarding the black bear roaming around town, having already munched on livestock as well as bee hives and birdfeeders.
“First and foremost, I want to say that we have first responders, who are experts,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said, noting it has been a subject of heated debate on Facebook. “They are professionals in the job they do, and the Police Department is one of those groups. We hire them for their expertise and we hire them to do a job – and at some point, we have to defer to those experts.”
Police Chief Michael Miksch has been consulting with Mass. Fisheries and Wildlife officials about options regarding the bear, she noted.
“You’re not going to find anyone who loves Burrage [conservation management area], wildlife, anything more than I do,” she said. But Miksch and Mass. Wildlife have identified one particular bear that has, on a number of occasions, killed livestock and demonstrated little fear of humans.
“That increases the level of concern,” she said.
Options available
FitzGerald-Kemmett quoted Mass. Wildlife as saying its “staff are coordinating with local police and environmental police to monitor this situation. While the bear has attacked livestock, it has not exhibited behavior that poses a direct threat to human safety. Mass. Wildlife is not attempting to euthanize the bear, however lethal removal by law enforcement may be required if they determine there is a threat to public safety.”
Mass. Wildlife has said that relocation is not an option for bears causing property damage as it would “transfer this problem behavior to another community. Bears that have learned to raid chicken coops or kill livestock will not stop that behavior if they are moved elsewhere.”
The only situations in which bears are removed to another location are to remove an immediate public safety threat in urban areas – not caused by the animal’s behavior but by their proximity to people and could cause a vehicle collision.
“It is possible that the bear will move out of the area on its own,” she quoted Mass. Wildlife as saying. But they spend more time in residential areas looking for birdfeeders, trash, unprotected backyard chickens, goats and outdoor pets.
Mass. Wildlife officials have already spoken to property owners who have experienced bear-related damage, offering tips on removing food services and protecting livestock.
“What they’re saying is, if you truly love these bears then don’t make them feel welcome in your back yard,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said. That includes holiday pumpkins, which it has been photographed doing.
Rein objected to the tone of Mass. Wildlife’s statement toward property owners.
“Yes, the bears are here, but they just got here,” she said. “Expecting everyone to be prepared for something that they weren’t expecting and castigating them because they’re complaining because their animals are getting killed is so wrong, I can’t even.”
They did their due diligence for the predators they know are here, Rein said.
“I’ve got bees,” she said. “I got a visit from the bear, but it ended well.” Her chickens are protected, and her bees will be.
“Nothing could have predicted this,” Rein added. “That this one bear is that bold.” By taking care to protect their property and livestock, they are protecting the bear, she said.