1/8/2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

5. Summary Matt reviewed his Peer Review dated December 31, 2014 He noted the Commission will need to determine the water dependency and in order for the project to be water dependent as defined in the wetlands protection act means: the use and facilities which require direct access to, or location in, marine, tidal or inland waters and which cannot be located away from said waters, including, but not limited to: marinas, public recreation uses, navigational and commercial fishing and boating facilities, water-based recreations uses, navigation or requiring large volumes of cooling or process water which cannot reasonably be located or operated at upland site, crossings over or under water bodies or waterways (but limited to railroad and public roadway bridges, tunnels, culverts, as well as railroad tracks and public roadways connecting which are generally perpendicular to the water body or waterway) and any others uses and facilities as may further be defined as water dependent in 310 CMR 9.00. He reiterated it states but limited to railway and public road bridges so it has to be a public road or public railway to be considered water dependent because you're traversing over it and it is not being used to access water or water related activity. Matt discussed the resource areas and performance standards as outlined in his report. (see attached) He noted it is up to the Commission to determine the water dependency. Rick York, Shellfish Constable, addressed the project. He read from a prepared statement which stated the Gooseberry Island project on the plan March 11, 2014 would adversely affect the productivity from the displacement of sediment by 18 pilings, 14 inches in diameter in the creek and the proposed salt marsh restoration on the south side of the island. These areas are significant shellfish habitat for soft shell clams and quahogs which changes in productivity are not allowed. In the affected areas within the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe aquaculture site, the loss of shellfish productivity could be higher because the purpose of aquaculture is to increase productivity. He also commented the other restorations wouldn't be a problem. It is just the one on the south side of the island that goes in to quahog habitat. The pilings are displacing the habitat and in this case, the productivity could be very high because it is a shellfish aquaculture site. That area could support 1,000 oysters a year which is significant. . Matt Creighton continued to present his peer review. He concluded by stating it is up to the applicant to show the Commissioners that they are meeting the performance standards. He summarized the project does not meet the definition of water dependent use nor does it meet all applicable performance standards under the wetlands protection act and the town of Mashpee wetlands regulations. He said additional information is needed to demonstrate the limited loss of salt marsh from beneath the bridge, bridge abutment impacts within v -zone and to show the naturally vegetated buffer strip impacts. In addition, the plans should be revised to show the correct HATL, MHW, MLW, and salt marsh/BVW impacts. He also stated the access from Punkhorn Point Road requires approval by the Commission as this is Town owned land. An access agreement/easement should be drafted and approved by the Town. This project will require additional approvals with local, state, and federal agencies. Rebecca Saiguero, legal consultant on behalf of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, referred to the binder which included all of the submittals they have made in opposition to the project. She wanted to make it clear that they do have legal rights to the area.