My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/16/1998 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
4/16/1998 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:18:56 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 2:28:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/16/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
18 April 1998 <br /> Rage +7, <br /> Mr. Humphries stated in terms of the unidirectional flow issue, he is certain <br /> that the Act is talking about the flow of the river being towards the river. If <br /> the entire area were drained and you block off any salt water to cone in, you <br /> would not see the influence of Abigail's Brook flowing in front of this site. He <br /> stated we are not tang about the Merrimac River coning in and continuing <br /> through this area. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated, on the other hand, the Merrimac River is not a tidal <br /> river. He asked what is the reason for the use of the additional item, tidal <br /> river, within the Rivers Act and it's regulations. If any body of water, such <br /> as Great River, which is affected with a tidal flow up and back is not a river, <br /> then there would be no sense of the language tidal ricer in the Act. If you <br /> had a one directional flow such as Mr. Humphries described, thea that is a <br /> river and not a tidal ricer. <br /> Mr. Humphries stated there are portions of the 1lern* <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.