01/25/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

1 Conservation Commission January 25, 1990 Pae 6. It was noted the two pilings up and down stream have been eliminated. Mr. Somerville did not have revised plans. Mrs, Simmons asked him to report in writing and he agreed. Mr. Sherman agreed with Mr. Somerville' s comments on the use impacts which are underscrutinized; his comments should be considered. Mrs. Simmons asked for mitigating measures Mr. Gray advised the Division of Marine Fisheries sets parameters that 1 sq, ft. quads are sufficient. Written guidelines may be forr uIated. This 4/89 study was done under parameters in effect at that time, should this change,, they can resample any area. Mr. Henchy advised impacts were divided into categories: temporary in mature, as the siltation from the piles being drive; the installation of 12 sq. ft. of pilings in the area from which there is going to be a small loss of habitat and use impacts from boats pulling in and out. There will be alterations from prop wash and sedimentation. Mr. Bafaro ovens two outboards, an 181 Wahoo with shallow draft and a 251 Grady White. Even at low tide there will be enough water to float the boats, but there may be some prop wash. He read from the act ander 10.34,4 re impact on productivity. He suggested there will be small areas affected by prop wash and 12 sq, ft, of permanent alteration. The- project can be permitted under the temporary destruction provision of the regulations. He has been authorized to submit to the shell- fish hell- fish department each spring a seed crop -to be used in any appropriate area. This is equivalent to the standing crop in the area to be disturbed* Mr. Somerville asked to be allowed to go back to the site with the revised plan, lrs. Simmons asked if he would prefer floats o permanent "T" With 2-112 feet of water he did not feel that would be significant. The use impact is a difficult area to discuss. if the project is approved, he would encourage the artificial aspect of planting shellfish. A number would be difficult to arrive at and could run thousands of dollars per year. He does not feel the survey represents the potential productivity of the area. Mr. Herscby agreed that tying up boats the length of the pier would not be appropriate. If a concern, that should be part of the order. Mr, Slavinsky advised two piles were saved to minimize the impact, Mr. Halpern . asked if going 5 feet more would provide more water. Mr. Slavinsky stated it would be approximately one-half foot more but would be up against the o ft. bylaw. Denise Sullivan from the audience asked whether Mr. Halpern should be commenting on this hearing as he sat on the Board of Appeals hearing. The Chairman stated that ,judgement will sit with Mr. Halpern. Mr, Sherman advised the Burden of Proof clause states that the work proposed in the application will not have unacceptable significant or cumulative effect on the wetland values. Cumulative is difficult to ,fudge but he feels they are not making any more shellfish habitat.