Laserfiche WebLink
The Selectmen did not let frim do that, They voted to put him on the Agenda to discuss his <br /> proposal. After the shell fish regulations for 1999 were approved, lir. Ellis outlined that he would <br /> like to extend the Moratorium because nothing has really been started yet. Ir. York then endorsed <br /> the idea.. Mr. Hanks believes his motivation is that he does not want to deal with any more grants. <br /> Steve Cadrin announced that there was an administrative procedure in place now that we have the <br /> new aquaculture regulations;therefore,there was no reason to continue the Moratorium. Mr. <br /> Harks then said that he reminded everyone that the waterways Commission had originally objected <br /> to aquaculture grants on the basis that there were no regulations. Now that there are some good <br /> regulations, our original objection is no longer in effect. Iden Marsters said that they did not have <br /> enough information to make a decision. He wanted the waterways and Shellfish Conumssions to <br /> discuss it and vote and then come back in a couple of weeks. Mr. Hams would life to discuss <br /> what we are in favor of doing, Mr. Alis is now talking about extending it for two years. Mr. <br /> Hanks said his contention was that unless we do something with the criteria,we will get another <br /> two years and we will not know whether we want to stop it or not. Mr. Hanks reported that during <br /> a phone conversation he had suggested.to Mr. Alis that we phrase it"up to two years'. If we can <br /> get everything together before then, we can lift the Moratorium. <br /> Mr. Taylor suggested that we proceed with the two-year moratorium with a review after <br /> the first of the year to see if we should continue or withdraw it. <br /> Mr. Fordham said the only problem he has is with the moratorium objectives. He was not <br /> sure if the Shellfish onunission ever agreed to the objectives. Mr. Hanks answered that the <br /> Sbellf.sh Commission did not agree. Mr. Fordham stated he liked the idea of objectives. Mr. <br /> Hanks then said that maybe those objectives were not the right ones. Mr. Fordham agreed and said <br /> that maybe the objectives should be simple. He then raised the question if over the years would we <br /> have navigation or are we going to have aquaculture" He said if we have navigation,then <br /> a uaculture will need to be restricted to the paint where it will not interfere with navigation. <br /> q <br /> Mr. Hanks said that was one of the dings that cane up when the Tribal Council grant was <br /> being discussed. He said Lir. Gordon said to have each marker buoy marked that says boating is <br /> allowed. <br /> Mr. Fordhathen questioned that if you do have aquaculture and you are in a boatin <br /> m <br /> g <br /> area who will take the res onsihilit } if you damage your boat in one of these areas? <br /> p <br /> Mr. Silver stated that he thought the areas of the shellfish marking should not be stuck out <br /> in the middle whereP eople navigate. He believes that impedes navigation. <br /> Mr, Hanks said that the third objective was to `identify possible shellfish aquaculture <br /> areas and feasibility"and that Mr. York did not really life this objective. Mr. Hanks believes Mr. <br /> Alis wanted to do this. <br /> Mr. Dal y made the suggestion that we should really push for punning down what some of <br /> the impacts are or how do you go about protecting the navigation aspect of it. <br /> Mr. Fordham said he believes the Commission should backup the Harbormaster. Mr. <br /> Dal said he had no problem with backing Mr. Alis up,however,he believes the Commission <br /> �' p g <br /> should back him up for the reasons that apply to the waterways Commission. <br /> 3 <br />