08/06/2026 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 to evaluate the project in combination with existing and reasonably foreseeable shoreline structures, access issues and alterations that may or may not affect Shoestring Bay. 2. DMF/Permanent Impacts and Alternatives: Mr. Colombo stated that concerns raised in the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) letter regarding permanent impacts and alterations remained unresolved in the administrative record. DMF determined that some impacts would be unavoidable and permanent, including direct salt marsh displacement and associated effects on fisheries, access and bordering shellfish habitat, and recommended alternative waterway access rather than construction of a permanent private pier over approximately 137 feet of salt marsh. Mr. Colombo found that the record contained no meaningful comparison of public, shared, shorter, alternate-alignment, fewer-pile or no-private-crossing alternatives. 3. Fisheries and Shellfish: Mr. Colombo stated that DMF identified Shoestring Bay as diadromous fish habitat and winter flounder spawning habitat and raised concerns regarding shellfish habitat, treated wood leachates and loss of fisheries access. He found that the applicant did not provide site-specific fisheries, shellfish, treated wood or seasonal work analysis sufficient to demonstrate compliance with applicable resource-area standards, noting that the information was directly material to 310 CMR 10.27, 10.32, 10.34 and 10.35. 4. Construction Methodology/Temporary Impacts: Mr. Colombo stated that construction methodology and temporary impacts remained undefined, with differing references in the record to hand installation, angering,pounding, vibration, possible jetting, possible mechanical equipment,plywood access and barge construction. He found that the applicant did not provide a final pile-by-pile construction protocol or quantify temporary marsh disturbance, identify equipment weights and loading, or establish sediment turbidity, spill and restoration requirements. He further noted that the applicant's original narrative contained differing descriptions of pile installation and contemplated plywood access and barge work. The final plan identified 62 supports and approximately 670 square feet of boardwalk but did not, by itself,resolve the construction impacts. 5. Cumulative Study Area, Mitigation and Monitoring: Mr. Colombo found the cumulative study area, mitigation and monitoring inadequate. He stated that the applicant selected a 100-foot review radius without establishing that it corresponded to the functional extent of the continuous salt marsh, fisheries habitat, shellfish habitat, tidal circulation, storm flowage or dock proliferation. He noted that Regulation 3 ordinarily requires specified dock and resource information within 150 feet and allows the Commission to require information out to 300 feet to evaluate effects upon resource areas and wetland values under Chapter 172. He further found that the proposed 40-square-foot planting area was tied primarily to the direct support footprint rather than the complete effects of the approximately 670-square-foot structure, 137-foot marsh crossing, construction access, shading,rack, scour, shellfish and fisheries effects, use, maintenance and storm damage. The record also lacked a measurable baseline condition, monitoring standards, reporting requirements and corrective-action thresholds. Mr. Colombo stated that he had spent considerable time reviewing the submitted 10-part concern placed into the administrative record and that most of the five findings he had read into the record directly corresponded with the cumulative-effect concerns he had previously raised. Ms. Pitt stated that Mr. Colombo's findings addressed the primary concerns she had with the proposal. She questioned the environmental credentials of the engineer who prepared the applicant's cumulative-effects information and stated that she was underwhelmed by the information submitted and did not believe it addressed her concerns. She indicated that she would rely on Mr. Colombo's comments. Mr. Sahl had nothing additional to add at that point. 3