Committee hears bills to update shorebird protections and restore beach access
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers heard testimony on a three-bill package (H 5139, H 5140, H 5141) that would require regular review of shorebird-management guidelines, create parity among beaches for mitigation tools and align some state protections with federal listings to ease access where appropriate.
Representative (name not specified) told the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources that H 5141, H 5140 and H 5139 are intended to balance conservation with longstanding recreational use of Massachusetts beaches.
"H 5141 in particular is an act promoting recreation on Massachusetts beaches," the testifier said, describing the bill as a mechanism to "revise and clarify some of the differences" between the state endangered-species list and the federal list so that state rules do not unnecessarily restrict access where federal protections do not apply.
The testifier said H 5140 would create parity among beaches by allowing exemption of certain deterrence tools where habitat-conservation plans currently limit access on narrow shorelines such as Duxbury Beach. H 5139 would compel the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) to revise its 1993 recreational-regulation guidelines on a regular schedule with public input.
Patrick Paquette, government affairs officer for the Massachusetts Striped Bass Association and author of the original Nauset-Orleans Habitat Conservation Plan, told the committee the plan and more recent HCP tools show how protections and public access can be reconciled and urged the committee to direct MassWildlife to update plans using the best available science and existing MEPA procedures.
"2139 seeks one thing, your support and your mandate in directing Mass Wildlife to update that document with the best available science," Paquette said.
Committee members asked whether MassWildlife had been consulted and whether the U.S. Department of Justice had expressed concerns. The testifier said the agency had been engaged and that DOJ had "pushback" on the way 5141 was written, but described the bill as a starting point for resolving how state and federal listings are reconciled.
Why it matters: Supporters framed the bills as overdue modernization: MassWildlife guidance dates from 1993 and, they said, does not reflect current science or the reality of shifting bird ranges due to climate change. Opponents or technical reviewers (federal agencies) may still raise legal or procedural concerns that would need to be addressed before regulatory changes are implemented.
What’s next: Committee members took questions and heard further public comment but did not take a vote on the bills during this session.
