Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aquaculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fishermen raise navigation concerns; council continues Castle Hill aquaculture resolution
Summary
Commercial fishermen urged the council to continue action on Castle Hill Inc.'s aquaculture application, citing navigation hazards and uncertainty over buoying and storm impacts. The sponsor moved to continue the council’s consideration to allow absent members and Coast Guard input; the motion passed.
Councilors heard extensive public comment from local commercial fishermen who said a proposed aquaculture farm near Castle Hill could create navigation hazards, displace established users and require additional regulatory oversight.
Captain Robert Grama (address provided during public comment) told council members he has been on the water for more than 50 years and said he worried the proposed structures would pose a night-time navigation hazard and that applicants may not fully understand local tides and use patterns. “It’s going to be a hazard to navigation,” he said.
Multiple other fishermen gave similar testimony, describing concerns about buoys, cage depth and storm exposure. One speaker said the cages would need a minimum depth (16 feet was mentioned in the presentation) and argued that toggle buoys planned by the applicant might be underwater at some tides, increasing collision risk.
The council sponsor explained the item’s history: the CRMC application first drew the council’s attention in 2025 and the council previously delivered a negative opinion when Castle Hill did not appear. The sponsor said he has since seen additional materials and will ask for a continuance to allow absent council members, Coast Guard comment and fuller stakeholder input.
Council voted to continue the matter to the next regular meeting so the proponents, fishermen and agencies can provide additional information. No final council opinion to CRMC was adopted at the meeting.
The public record showed specific objections focused on hazards to navigation, buoying strategy and the potential displacement of long-standing, local fishing activity; the council’s action was procedural (continuance) rather than an endorsement.
