My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/13/1999 WATERWAYS COMMISSION Minutes
>
5/13/1999 WATERWAYS COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:24:20 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 1:26:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
WATERWAYS COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/13/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
dredging. Through two modeling studies, we have learned that the protected channels would neither <br /> improve not hurt the river. we are talking about a channel 4,500 feet long, averaging 50 feet wide and <br /> three feet deep mean low water. we calculated it to tnean 15 000 cubic yards of dredge material. Our <br /> design goals are to leave no flume and introduce no salt into the groundwater,or at least if we do, it is in <br /> acceptable levels, Irian Howes advised us that when the dredge material is stirred up, it is going to <br /> release a lot of new nutrients that are trapped in the mud;therefore,we should not put that back into the <br /> groundwater. Mr. Hanks then showed a pictorial of the proposed channel. <br /> Mr. Hanks stated that the snuck is net suitable for beach nourishment. It has a high.nutrient content, we <br /> did a lab test in 1996 that showed there were no hydrocarbons, heavy metals, etc. that make it <br /> contaminated. we did not do a grain size analysis. we have learned over the past year that the toga eight <br /> inches of the black muck is 90%silt. when we get into actual permitting,we will need the final analysis <br /> of grain size and water content. <br /> There:are thrce dredge techniques we have considered. The first is hydraulic dredging. The next choice <br /> would be clainshcll bucket. This is attractive because there is not as much water to deal with. The third <br /> choice is subsidence deepening. Mr. Hanks then went over each of the techniques and explained the <br /> material, characteristics,beneficial uses and handling method. <br /> A gentleman from the audience,Mir. Dill McKay had a question for Mr.Rosenberg. In regards to the law <br /> he read at the beginning of the inecting,froin,what he heard from Mr. Hanks' presentation, those do not <br /> sound life conversions. He went on to say they certainly would have an impact,possibly positive or <br /> negative. He wondered if Mr. Rosenberg had any more infon-nation on ghat a conversion really is, It <br /> seems that whole law seeined to hinge on the word";conversion", <br /> Mr. Rosenberg explained what Article 97 is. In 1972 the Legislature passed and they were approved some <br /> Constitutional amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. It provided a break between those things <br /> that local municipalities could do and those things that could not be done by local communities. One of <br /> the iteins in that local option law was Article 97,which had to do with anything called a conversion of the <br /> use of parr or conservation lands. That was reserved exclusively to the State so that any matter which <br /> involved a conversion of parr or conservation land would have to go before,be passed and approved by a <br /> two-thirds vote of each House of the Legislature. It took the power to do these things away from the towns <br /> if there were any question that they had thein. That is why it becomes important to see ghat the State is <br /> saying from time-to-time. As far as the dredging of the river is concerned,that has nothing to do with the <br /> Conservation Commission. Along with that,there has been a lot of talk that there are certain ideas,which <br /> have been advanced that may have to do with conservation land.. Mr. Rosenberg said he was trying to <br /> point out that this was not only a matter for the Conservation Commission of the Town of Mashpee,but <br /> also was a matter for the State. In this connection, there was a reiteration that the Executive Officer of <br /> nvironinental Aff'air's was not favoring this sort of thing. They were basically saying you would need an <br /> environmental impact report with the scientific evidence and the ruling out of alternatives. <br /> The gentleman in the audience said that he thought it all depended on what a conversion is, Mr. <br /> Rosenberg gave the definition of conversion as a change in use. Anything that will effect a parcel of <br /> conservation land becomes a conversion. <br /> Mr. Hanks asked the Conservation Commission if they had any feelings, vire way or the other on the three <br /> techniques he had mentioned. Mr. Rosenberg said it becomes a matter of coining up and satisfying the <br /> several requirements. He assumes that you have to have extensive scientific analyses to show what will <br /> happen, haw it will happen and what the effects will be before anyone can make a decision. Mr. <br /> Rosenberg asked Mr. Hanks haw much information did lie have as to what the scientific effects would be <br /> if he was going to do anything that would affect the conservation land. what would go into the <br /> environmental impact report? <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.