Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> ti f <br /> i <br /> July 9, 2009 <br /> Mr. D Myers, Chait <br /> Environmental Oversight Committee <br /> Town of Mashpee <br /> 16 Great Neck Rd., No. <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> #fie;June 22, 2009 Waterways Commission Power Point, 1 la tepee River, et al <br /> Don, <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to see the subject presentation in advance of the scheduled <br /> Env iron menta I Oversight Com mittee. Sadly,the presentation,for the most part, is <br /> restatement of old positions than are more about impediments than forward thinking on this <br /> long standing problem. <br /> I will attempt to limit my comments to what "pops out"to me based upon the presentation a <br /> opposed to authoring a novel. <br /> The Waterways' approach to doing the full inhabited length of the estuary is in conflict with the <br /> resident petitioners request (based on Shellfish closures)to dredge as fair as Orsini Beach. <br /> When waterways modified the scope with this substantial increase, citizen requests to utilize a <br /> two (2) phased approach to nninimi a cost and technical difficulty problems were ignored.This <br /> possibility should still be considered.A successful first phase could easily justify the second. <br /> The "Navigation is the Basis for Dredging"justification seems to rely on an early belief that <br /> licensing agencies would not accept water duality Justifications.and computer modeling showed <br /> little potential change. Among other considerations, the residents wanted a solution to the <br /> shellfish closures and other primary human contact issues that were increasing over time. <br /> Navigation was not the primary consideration but was considered ak desirable plus.The two <br /> dimensional modeling of a laminar flow ruler is not a comprehensive evaluation of the existing <br /> problems. Approaching the solution with a mind-set that navigation is the lead consideration <br /> clouds the real issues. <br /> "Conservation issues" relating to upland disposal are more in the area of political chicanery <br /> than a real problem.Two potential upland areas were identified and summarily rejected for <br /> invented reasons. one was the proposed depression was not large enough to deafer the <br /> maximized length in a single dredging and the other was an invented land use problem. <br /> 1 believe we did I lashpee #d Iver sed irneint a na lysis in 2001 and it showed mostly clay or s.1lt with <br /> minimal sand in the area being contemplated for a new analysis. I don't thinly the proportion of <br /> sand has increased since. (pages from 2001 ENF included) <br />