Laserfiche WebLink
July 27 , 19819 — Page 6. <br /> Having not seen the report that Mr. Mayes refers to, l only <br /> can comment on what he said here. I still would maintain <br /> that as of right now, I have not seen the documentation that <br /> I feel would be necessary for this commission to render a <br /> decision that that particular area is in fact isolated land <br /> subject to flooding. The characteristics that I saw in the <br /> field would lead me to believe that we still have to consider <br /> that particular area as bordering vegetated wetland. <br /> For those of you that are novices at this and wondering what <br /> the big differences are, in lay terms, the difference between <br /> an area that has a great deal of protection and probably <br /> cannot be tampered with in excess of 5000 sq. ft. vs an area, <br /> that you've heard them say is one to two acres in size, vs an <br /> area if it' s an isolated .hand subject to flooding, the whale <br /> thing can be dLJg out and possibly created Into some golf <br /> course pond. The issue for the Commission is an important <br /> one in terms of protecting the resources. <br /> With respect to the coastal bank issue, again, I'm pleased <br /> that we now have legitimate coastal banks on the site. <br /> Unless I have missed something in the presentation and <br /> written documentation, I am dismayed at the position IEP has <br /> taken in terms of where the top of the coastal bank happens <br /> to be. If .I understand what Stan has presented here arra from <br /> the written documentation, it would seem to me that if the <br /> of is,sion was to accept the interpretation that 1 F' has <br /> presented here, that past practice of the State world all be <br /> thrown out the window in terms of dealing with coastal bank <br /> issues and so forth. I heat-, or understand, Stan to be <br /> telling us that the top of the coastal bank is simply <br /> coincident with the 100 year flood elevation plus 1 ,ft. <br /> vertical rise. This is not someth-inn, to my knowledge, that <br /> has been standard practice of the state. Its -fact, the <br /> presentations in the proponents document of four types of <br /> coastal banks would verify that the top of the coastal basil <br /> routine:iy has been identified by DEQE and CZM as the first <br /> observable break or significant break 'above the 100 year <br /> flood elevation. Again, the basic question is, what <br /> difference does it mare whether we accept the 100 year flood <br /> elevation or we accept some point that's up slope. The <br /> difference for the Commission is one of jurisdiction. I feel <br /> that under- the -IEP presentation, the commission would be <br /> giving up a great deal of jurisdictional area and thus <br /> control of what might take place with respect to the various <br /> resources that have also been Identified and show on the plan <br /> in green and so forth being salt marsh and ether areas that <br /> are down gradient. 1f we' re to take the buffer measurement <br /> from the 100 year flood elevation 100 ft. up, that .lessens <br /> the jurisdiction isdi.ction that the commission now enjoys under 'the <br /> present scheme of things in which that ,jurisdiction would <br /> begin at the top ot~ the bank, the top of the bark defined as <br />