How a fencing project became a closure proposal

Unanswered questions

• What changed? What new evidence, legal determination, or policy conclusion made managed access impossible after MPRB had publicly described fencing, boundary control, and continued river/beach access?
• What is the factual predicate? Is MPRB relying on confirmed burial sites, suspected burial sites, archaeological sensitivity, Traditional Cultural Place incompatibility, ceremonial-use concerns, ecological restoration, adjacent-property enforcement, or some combination? Burial Sites
• Was the physical land record evaluated? Did MPRB analyze historical river movement, accreted land, floodplain conditions, current visitor corridors, jurisdictional boundaries, and the Ordinary High Water Level before choosing full decommissioning? Physical Record
• Were narrower alternatives analyzed? Where is the comparison between decommissioning and fencing, boundary reduction, protected zones, leash corridors, shoreline buffers, seasonal or event restrictions, monitoring, enforcement, additional survey, restoration buffers, partial closure, relocation, or replacement?
• What did commissioners know, and when? Were there private briefings, closed meetings, serial communications, advisory meetings, or outside discussions? Who attended? What legal basis was used? Were required recordings created and preserved? Was any consensus built outside open session? Decision Makers
• What records are being withheld, and why? Exact protected-site locations may be confidential. MPRB can still disclose segregable public conclusions, methods, confidence levels, generalized management zones, recommendations, alternatives considered, and reasons alternatives were rejected.
• What happens to permit holders? Where is the analysis of lost access, system capacity, crowding, substitute sites, refunds, credits, fee adjustments, and funded equivalent replacement before access is lost? River Access