My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/11/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
05/11/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:24:57 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 3:27:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/11/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
s <br /> 11 May 2000 <br /> Page 12. <br /> recognize this is a regulatory coastal bark but it meets the performance <br /> standards, the interests protected finder the state act for the bank. The two <br /> functions they do are: one is to provide sediment for the beach and dunes, the <br /> other is to provide protection for flood control. In this instance, none of the <br /> activity is impacting anything to do with the coastal bark. Also, since this i <br /> very far away from the coast, they are 1800 feet from the coast, so while this <br /> is a regulatory bank, the function as a coastal bank is very limited. It is <br /> essentially flood plain. <br /> Ms Boretos would agree, except under 10.24 1 of the wetland Protection Act <br /> Regulations 310 CMR 10.0, the Commission can determine an area that <br /> doesn't have a presumption of significance for one of the eight interests under <br /> the Wetlands Protection Act as providing that interest, if there. is evidence <br /> that It is doing so. A lot of the photographs that are in that little package <br /> have the denning, the corridors and the feeding activity being provided by <br /> this coastal bank, not just the wetland. She would suggest to the <br /> Commission and make a recommendation that they determine this coastal <br /> i bank to provide wildlife habitat interests under the 10.24 1 provision, as <br /> well as the Land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage which doesn't have <br /> performance standards but you can also use 10.2 1 that it is providing <br /> wildlife habitat. This is one of the last remaining areas in New seabury that <br /> i <br /> is providing significant wildlife habitat. If your can't protect this area, you <br /> have gone a significant way in reducing viable populations of some animals, <br /> like mink, long tail weasel and perhaps some of the birds in the area. <br /> Mr. gray asked if she was stating that those two mammals are on the site, <br /> utilizing the site? Ms Boretos stated there are definitely mustelids there. He <br /> asked on what she was basing this? He has seem no scat in the photographs. <br /> She said it was because of the location and size or diameter of some of the <br /> denning that is occurring on the site. He asked specifically where on the site? <br /> She pointed to the locations. 'Where are dens all over the coastal bank. Mr. <br /> Gray asked if they were specifically for triose two species she just mentioned? <br /> Ms. Boretos did not wish to get into this conversation because what she said <br /> earlier was the regulations don't speak to protecting particular species. Mr. <br /> Gray stated he is trying to find out that the specific dens that she is <br /> g are g <br /> referencing being utilized by those two mammal species because she is <br /> saying this is a significant area for those two species. Ms Boretos stated she <br /> did not say that, she said this is a significant area for wildlife habitat, not <br /> just those two species. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.