Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Commission <br /> May 31 , 1990 <br /> Page 2 <br /> the sediment; every year you're going to have an impact on the bottom of Jehui Pond <br /> gust by. virtue. of it being a seasonal pier. <br /> Pyr. Desrosi rs asked who gave approval of this in 1980 and was told it was received <br /> from D.E. .E, Mashpee Conservation Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers. <br /> Ir. Coffey stated the jetting seems to be the issue. Seasonal piers usually have <br /> r <br /> 2 inch and under pilings and the presumption is they are driven, not jetted. <br /> Mr, Halpern asked if she was saying this care through Conservation in 1980 with <br /> 4 inch piles? <br /> Ms St. Pierre stated it was approved and authorized. <br /> Mrs. Simmons asked if she was assuming this be to for one season and was told that <br /> is what they are hoping for. If -the ommi s i on would prefer, they will request an <br /> amendment to the existing order of conditions to allow the maintenance of the PVC <br /> sleeves. <br /> Mrs. Simmons pointed out it was unfortunate the orders say nothing about maintenance, <br /> The copy in the envelope does not make reference to any sleeves. <br /> Mr, Halpern asked if there are any drawings? <br /> Mrs. Simmons stated there were none in the file. his St.Pi erre had presented a plan <br /> this evening, but it is not the plan referred to in the order of Conditions, <br /> Mr, Sherman stated his feeling, that this is one of the things that falls into the <br /> cracks of regulation. The Commission would not be opposed, as long as environmental <br /> standards' are not compromised,, to having someone have an interim solution but it is <br /> up to them to contact D.E.P. to find out where it Fits into the cracks. <br /> Ms St. Pierre asked to address that issue. She brought with her, gust in case, a <br /> written policy from D.E.P. , #854, which addresses amendments to orders of Conditions. <br /> This policy was developed to give Commissions direction on how to make determination <br /> of whether a request is appropriate for an amendment or it requires a new filing. <br /> The things to-be looked at are. Is the purpose of the project clanging substantially? <br /> The answer .i s no. Has the scope of the project increased substantially? No. Will <br /> the potential for adverse impacts to protect the statutory interests be increased- <br /> substantially? <br /> n revs dsurbstanttally? The answer is no. This is not a new project; it is ars existing, <br /> authorized, licensed, permitted, project. It's not a whole new concept, it' s not <br /> a substantial deviation from the construction. Both the Army Corps & D.E.P. , in <br /> any license they grant, provide authorization for the permitee to maintain their <br /> facility. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated it is a confusing maze with Army Corps, Chapter 91 , and 131 .40, <br /> He questioned whether the driving of a new sleeve is any different than the driving <br /> of a new pile and the driving of a new pile, clearly, has been told to us , requires <br /> a new Notice of Intent. <br /> FIs St.Pierre stated,, in most circumstances, the driving of a new pile would be <br /> for a permanent structure; there is a difference between a seasonal and permanent <br /> structure, <br />