Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hanks stated he could not answer that at the moment, We have arranged to have threeeo le take a <br /> p � <br /> site survey of the upland disposal sites who will consider ghat they would do to improve that. Mr. Hanks <br /> mentioned the letter Broin Mario DiGregorio postulating the pond environment. Paul Lelito proposed the <br /> same idea but also said you could make a combination of upland vegetation and pond environment. In <br /> both cases,you world need a water supply to keep the pond full. More recently, in going over this with <br /> Diane Boretos, she inade us aware of the advantages of snag habitat, <br /> Mr. Wallenharpt asked how tong it would take to get to the restoration of habitat improvement. lir. <br /> Hanks answered that conservatively the dredged inaterial should setaxrd drain for a year and then we <br /> would restore the topsoil along with the vegetation set to one side with the intent of replanting it; Then <br /> we would reinstall any trees that you can move but would not intend to keep them alive. The dead trees <br /> would serve as snag habitats. within three years,you would have a pretty good environment. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked if you would need to move the dredged material. Mr.Hanks stated the proposal is to <br /> leave it there. Mr. Rosenberg asked if that was contamination. Mr. Hanks said as lie mentioned earlier, it <br /> is not contaxninated. <br /> Mr. worsen asked if contamination was just heavy inctals and VOC's or was it a high nutrient content as <br /> well. Mr.Hanks answered that we know there is a high nutrient content. That is not considered <br /> containination. <br /> Mr. worsen stated that under Massachusetts Drinking Standards,those are secondary MCO's. Mr.Hanks <br /> pointed out that we are not dealing with the situation where we would affect the drinking water. <br /> Mr. Hanks then went over the details. First he went over the operational requirements for hydraulic <br /> dredging. Mr. Rosenberg asked if all the salt and nutrients would be left in the soil. Mr. Hanks answered <br /> that the salt and nutrients would go out with the water. As you dig the material out, you will be digging <br /> out some material that has fresh water percolating in it. we don't know what levels of salinity are <br /> tolerable. it has to be determined. <br /> Mir. Rosenberg asked if you are taking out the silt, isn't that substantially nutrients. Mr. ranks stated that <br /> he took some core samples in 1997. when they dried, he srnaslied thein and mixed it with other soil and <br /> planted peppers. They did not do very well. <br /> Mr. wallcnhaupt asked if they were actually advancing a core into the dredging spoils or into the bottom <br /> of the river}keeping thein in a tube and hien setting therm up for moisture analysis and content. <br /> Mr. Hanks referred back to an earlier slide. In, 1996 we took three-foot deep core samples. That was sent <br /> to a lab for analysis for heavy metals, hydrocarbons, etc. More recently,Brian Howes did care sampling <br /> of the muck in several places of the Mashpee River. we need final analysis of grain,size and salinity of <br /> the core to the depth we would be dredging. <br /> Mr. worsen asked if it would be beneficial to get the parameters of what the cones are before you make a <br /> plan. Mr.Hanks said if you do cores,you may as well do it all at once. The only way to,justify spending <br /> money on getting cores is if Brian Howes is able to do it. <br /> rlr. Sherman asked which approach had the least environmental impact on conservation land. Mr. Hanks <br /> said we make the assumption that the islands we propose to build would not be on conservation land. <br /> Mr'. .toharasen asked if we had any reports on the island near the Chesapeake Bay. Mr.Hanks answered <br /> that that project is gust getting started. He said he did have a report on building a marsh near Charlotte, <br /> North Carolina. He does not know how they built it up or the characteristics of the dredge material. <br /> 3 <br />