The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutJohn_to_BCAGIdeas to strengthen consensus: Overall: Report Format would best be: Executive Summary (which we write last) Strategy Supporting data Best written from BCAG by BCAG We need to separate BCAG strategy from cumbersome HW report Increase clarity, understanding, use and value Add credibility if independent of historically divisive HW-Town relationship More overt integrity – HW has a classic “divided loyalties” conflict of interest Strategy always precedes planning – can't plug a genuine strategy into a plan BCAG can't validate HW's technical assessments Practicality – we'll get more useful work done, concentrate on area of most value BCAG should write this with facilitators... not HW, per clear agreement at the beginning (Operating Protocols distributed 2-12-16) technical team “to help us understand ...” (p3) facilitators “prepare and distribute draft and final summaries, generate draft agreements” (p5) Freshly-created strategy, pulled together in facilitated BCAG analysis and discussion, has much better chance of •creating shared ownership and consensus •reflecting community values, higher quality and being much less divisive Refer to HW's coastal threats and adaptation analysis of course, but also refer to vision, survey insights and issues, sticker sales, year round access needs (remember – survey was just for the summer peak) Suggest adding key principle: "Every initiative should be evaluated for its impact on overall carbon emission and sequestration – ie climate change, and versus any alternative(s) that would improve our climate footprint" It is time to close the loop and face up to what we have done to cause this. Some people think we can still “have it all” but we are reaching limits, and need to adjust To do more of the same would be major folly, to set a good example would be very powerful Center for Coastal Studies is launching an initiative to drive Town and Conservation Trust responsibility Key opportunities to get a better Strategy We are missing a critical dimension.Please! Let us hear from a NOAA Meteorologist! Planning for something that certainly will not happen! We need to look beyond bathtub and SLOSH models Have just listed historical storms, when we know it will be worse than that Just looking at historic linear projections, when we know the changes are accelerating Levels may rise much faster based on research at Greenland Ice Cap [another 24 ft?] Look at risks and probabilities What kind of storms can we expect? How much more likely and often? Why? Need to understand uncertainty and variability What is the range of possible local impacts? Need flexible strategy with robust contingency plans to adapt (If we had that earlier, we'd never have had years people could not get to Paine's Creek) Strategy We need clear direction and prioritization ...or we don't have a strategy! We are just rearranging a smorgasbord now – may be helping HW, more than Brewster –this isn't strategy, and there's still lots of work to do –maybe we should ask for volunteers to get a draft ready before the next meeting? –focus here on giving guidance to that group? BCAG should decide what goes here, not Horsley Witten - churning through strategy proposals introduced by HW is wasting our time eg Section on New Access Locations (What HW put in draft was never agreed by BCAG, what BCAG has proposed is not here) We should be discussing the priorities we proposed, eg: "The Town should evaluate additional access points to the shoreline through using Town land eg Drummer Boy, Wings Island, and Spruce Hill Cease hiding Spruce Hill Beach - put it on the Town Beach Map” Quickly plan and evaluate a shuttle pilot, likely to Paine's Creek beach (where about 60 spaces serve over 1900 ft of beach) Also What about “resident only” options??? What about dog access???!!! Other key things from the survey?More survey analysis? We should consider adding attached “Crowdedness” critical data summary, quantifying the crucial demand-supply challenge which the strategy needs to address HW's table is technical, not strategic – we need more incisive, simple and thoughtful tables for strategy – Suggest we prepare a table like this for our strategic report (this is indicative – should be carefully verified) “Crowdedness” Indication Parking Density at Beaches (spots per 100 ft of beach) Parking spaces:Beach Spaces Beach Length Local notes regular handi Total (feet)per 100 ft load? Below Average Wing's Island 0 0 0 2977 0.00 low Spruce Hill 12 12 820 1.46 low Paine's / Mants 59 4 63 1937 3.25 medium Above Average Point of Rocks 11 275 4.00 low Crosby/Linnell 184 4 188 2991 6.29 high 48% now, over 50% in Fall Ellis Landing 17 2 19 220 8.64 medium Little Breakwater 6 6 65 9.23 low Breakwater Beach 54 2 56 286 19.58 medium Saints Landing 36 2 38 182 20.88 low Crosby Marsh 0 0 0 1300 0.00 low not readily accessible Totals 368 14 393 11053 3.56 average ratio Source: HW numbers, count of new at Crosby-Linnell, lateral measurements at high tide line on Oliver 2014 Sticker Sales all of per day Unit Revenue 2014 or week Price Day 2473 59 $15 $37,095 Week 1584 226 $50 $79,200 BG Weekly 191 27 $20 $3,820 Season 6364 6364 $20 $127,280 Season Visitor 109 109 $150 $16,350 Totals 10,721 $263,745 Valid on average day 6677 Valid stickers/space 18.1 Estimate total likely stickers on a given day All day 59 2/3 week 169 Plus Nickerson Tags 12 240 Remains for seasonal 153 spaces which would hold 2.3% of seasonal stickers (2014 data – should update)Source: Town 2015 All best data to hand – should be updated and verified IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS In 7.2 'Public Engagement' If BCAG is to be useful, we need to maintain the openness in all future planning, and in implementation We need to recognize that Initiatives go through stages of development - probably one of the two greatest causes of our lack of consensus! No significant project can be evaluated and approved all at once, if we seek good outcomes or consensus To be done well, with good results, projects have to be evaluated in stages, in open public reviews –these are robust assessments, followed by a decision on fitness to proceed –this will hugely improve the opportunity for consensus –the particular aspect/criteria reviews by individual boards remain – they do not do this Initiatives/projects should normally have three stages of review before “signing the contract” to complete 1. Direction: stakeholders, needs, issues, ideas >concept to explore, assumptions and risks to test 2. Concept review: broad not deep, assumptions/alternatives, propose design criteria >design direction 3. Detailed design: plan, work-plan, cost, resources, timeline, issues >contract to complete the project Any one of these reviews should be repeated if the requirements for approval to go forward to the next stage have not been met Despite possible impressions, this disciplined approach speeds projects, it does not slow them. (Simple projects with less uncertainly can carefully combine the first two stages.) Would managing this process be one of the responsibilities of the Coastal Committee? Wherever we place the responsibility... It is very important that we specify this kind of stage review process if we want successful project direction and implementation Key Implementation principles Point person facilitates Proactive communication and continuing open engagement Remember the strategy and keep the process ...even if chasing grant money Consistent full cost evaluation Finally, test what we have Talk through recent past projects in non-blameful way – like we were watching from the gallery and wanted everyone to be happy with the outcome. How might what we are offering here have improved consensus over the last couple of years? Have we missed anything? Does anything need to change?