Laserfiche WebLink
4. Aquaculture Moratorium Objectives Discussion <br /> Mr. Daly questioned if this item should still be on the agenda. Mr. Hanks <br /> explained that he should have changed the agenda item to eliminate those items that did <br /> not apply. <br /> Mr. Ellis reported the State carne in today to do a planned review of the sites. <br /> They found a.map from 1993 and identified a threatened species of sea.grass. About <br /> every ten feet they found little sprouts of it. Because of its endangered status, they may <br /> not grant it as an aquaculture site. <br /> Mr. Daly said that we had an extensive discussion and what happened was that Our <br /> considerations would be navigation. We then wrote a recommendation. Mr. Hanks stated <br /> that prior to the motion, he was still stuck on trying to get done what Mr. Ellis wanted to <br /> do two years ago which is to identify the places where you can or can't have aquaculture <br /> to preserve the navigation. Mr. Hanks said if the CoMMIssion wanted to throw out the <br /> idea of trying to identify possible areas, we should vote on it, Mr. hanks then stated the <br /> second bullet could be combined with the first one to say: " errnanent and planned <br /> channels, and identify no aquaculture areas." <br /> IIIb. Ellis said it should say designated mooring areas. Mr. Hanks asked if Il i, Ellis <br /> would prohibit aquaculture in a mooring area. Mr. Ellis said he would. Mr. Hanks went <br /> on to say that if we ju st say identify no aquaculture areas that covers everything. <br /> Mr. Ellis said he thought we should wait and see if the aquacultural habitat is <br /> successful and if at all it is contributing to the wild set of spat or seed and also are they <br /> filing the reports at the end of the year as to amount of seed set. <br /> Waterways Improvement Plan and.Dredging Pernfits—Mr. Hanks <br /> Mr, Hanks reported that we have a problem with what do we do with the <br /> Conservation Commission. We seat them a letter a little over a month ago with no <br /> response. Mr. Hanks asked if he should send them a letter asking when they might expect <br /> one. Mr, Hanks said he believed we should write therm a strong letter and give there a <br /> deadline to respond and copy the Selectmen. Mr. Lumsden stated he spoke with one of <br /> the Commissioners and was led to understand that he would agree to our request but he <br /> isn't going to make a motion himself, Mr. Lumsden agreed to deliver the letter to the <br /> Conservation Commission on Thursday 13 May 99. <br /> Mr. Baker made a suggestion that this Comnlission should issue} in regards to the <br /> upland disposal for dredging the Mashpee Diver, a request for two options in the <br /> response. The first one being disposal on the Stenberg property. The second option being <br /> the next best method devised by the responder. Mr. Hams thought this was possible} but <br /> suggested that the term "upland disposal" would be better than "the Stenberg Parcel. ' <br />