10/9/2014 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

r believes the project does not demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact on the shellfish beds. She claimed that the Applicants have gm nt d the project in a wary that does not allow the Commission to see the big, picture. She said that the Commission i � being arcked to review a private bridge and a driveway to an island with no destination. She asked the Commission to consider that construction of a single family d r lling'would pose numerous additional issues that could affect water quality and land containing shellfish. In answert ar question of what is the definition of adverse impact, lis. Ball said no adverse impact means negligible, not to be considered. It would not have an impact. Bob Darlri' Ttr 'Th, referred to his letter he submitted to the commission in June and stated he objects to the continuance. He said this proj6ct should not be approved. H remarked that the Applicants are -driving piles crossing public water and -grounds for private purposes. In his opinion, Mr. D l r said that the bridge is not waiter dependent; that it is net permissible under the wetlands regulation; that it has impacts that are not mitigated; and it places a structure in waters of the Commonwealth. He referred to an illustration attached to his letter. II,IIr. Dale r said the bridge requires.fill for the abutment on both ends. The. fill sits in a road that will block access to the water. The mitigation suggested is not 1:1. This will have an impact on shellfisheries and there is no proposed mitigation. He sald�that the whole idea of the Wetlands Act is to protect the resources capacity. Jessie Little Doe-Baird, Vice Chair Wampano g Tribe, read from a prepared statement which stated the Tribe has submitted in writing its strenuous opposition to the bridge project. She said the Tribe received a shellfish grant in 1977 from the tern and it was approved by the legislation, which remains in effect until 2027. The Tribe's aquaculture work is vital and produces a valuable resource for the Town and the coast line. The area is considered a critical component of the town's EPA merit award to reduce nitrogen in the ` Peppeness t estuary and the aquaculture farm serves as an economic engine for the Tribe and its citizens. Massachusetts law is clear that the shellfish license provides the Tribe exclusive rights to the -shellfish beds. The Tribe is entitled to exclusive use of.the lands, water, flats and creeps. The Massachusetts law also allows the licensee to see} damages to anyone who disturbs the shellfish farms. If the bridge is constructed, the shellfish beds will suffer significant and long terra environmental impacts. The Applicant has already conducted drilling without the Tribe's consent. Ms. Ball said that the Tribe do-es not consent to -any activity that will disturb the shellfish beds. She referred to the environmental reports submitted. They result in the same conclusion -the Applicant does not and cannot conform to the performance standards and the Application must be denied. The bridge to nowhere will be a significant cost to taxpayers. The Tribe has already spent time and resources. The Tribe intends to take whatever action is necessary to prevent disturbance to this resource. The Tribe respectfully requests the Commissioners to deny this Application. Mark Tilden, Tribe's legal department, emphasized M.G.L. c. 130 §§ 57 thru 68 which state the Tribe has exclusive rights to the shellfish beds and if there is any disturbance to the aquaculture farm the law provides for penalties. Attorney Tilden said that it is critical to beep in mind there should not be any disturbance to the Tribe's shellfish grant. He cited § 7a. He said the Tribe does nt consent to any bind of interference of the right to the shellfish grant which expires in 2027.