The town’s controversial aquaculture rules and regulations have been approved by the Board of Selectmen after eight months of public hearings and rewriting.

An ad hoc committee was formed in March to create the document following the discovery that the town did not have clear regulations for shellfishing.

Additionally, the Marine Advisory Board held public hearings throughout the summer to determine how Mattapoisett’s waters are used. The result was a “Waterfront Management Plan” locating areas suitable for recreation, navigation and mooring. Any area not being used in these three categories could potentially be considered for aquaculture.

The Waterfront Management Plan was also approved at the Nov. 22 Board of Selectmen meeting. Two oft-discussed components to the approved regulations were redrafted following a Nov. 1 public hearing: the Board of Selectmen’s authority over granting of aquaculture licenses; and the “one-fathom rule,” which originally prohibited operations within six feet of water at mean low tide.

According to the final document, the Selectmen have authority to grant or revoke licenses in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws. Before a license can be revoked, however, a public hearing must be held for the licensee to state his or her case.

Additionally, the Selectmen may declare a moratorium on granting new licenses, but only after scientific data or negative environmental factors and impact show the moratorium is in the best interest of the town.

The other component, the one-fathom rule, has some additional wording.

It states that applicants wishing to apply for a license within the one-fathom line must prove the intended species requires such a depth, and that the Marine Advisory Board and Harbormaster must recommend it. A unanimous vote of support from the Board of Selectmen is also required.

According to Selectmen Chair Paul Silva, the language of these components were too broad and left the town open to potential lawsuits.

Selectman Jordan Collyer, who has long stated his disagreement with the one-fathom rule, said the finalized rules and regulations were balanced to meet the town’s needs and what could legally be done.

“The one-fathom rule remains intact,” Collyer said. “I can stand behind what’s here, because it’s fair to everyone. I think we’re in a good spot now. We’ve maintained what the town thought should be there.”

Collyer also said there was a misconception about his support of the waterfront plan.
“I have some concerns with the language, but that has been ironed out,” Collyer said. “For the record, I did not state that I didn’t support the plan. I apologize if there was any confusion.”