My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/13/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
5/13/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:23:40 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 2:47:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION 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.
/
11
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
13 May 1999 <br /> Rage 2. <br /> preservation, agricultural preservation or watershed protection restriction). I <br /> also have the discretion to require a full Environmental Impact Report for <br /> any project involving a significant conversion of Article 97 lard." <br /> Mr. Rosenberg felt this should be brought forth due to its recent date and <br /> having to do with projects such as this. <br /> Mr. Hanks asked for a copy of the letter. He introduced the members of the <br /> Waterways Commission that were present, Don Lund, Herb silver, Bill <br /> Taylor, Raul Lumsden and Jerry- Daly. He asked Conservation <br /> Commissioners to identify themselves and they did so. conservation Agent <br /> Bob Sherman identified himself also. <br /> Mr. Hanks stated they would have to go to INFRA because of the nature o <br /> the dredging. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated he raised the points because it has come to his <br /> attention,, unofficially, that at least one ofthe purposes of this mooting is to <br /> request from the Conservation Commission what their recommendations <br /> would be. Since it becomes clear in this letter offi May 3rd that there is going <br /> to have to be an Environmental Impact Report and various other things, that <br /> has to be taken into account if they intend to ask the Commission for any <br /> expression ofopinion. It would be improper of the Commission to giro ars <br /> opinion without having before them all the material that had to be submitted <br /> to the State and to other agencies and to have that material come into <br /> conflict with an opinion or anything else given. <br /> 1r. Hanks stated that will be addressed as they go through their <br /> presentation. There have been numerous Discussions, not all valid. They do <br /> not expect any approvals tonight, they are only looking-for conceptual near- <br /> agreements to reduce the cost to the Town. Mr. Hanks began his <br /> presentation with a series of slides. <br /> 'heir objectives are to explore concepts for doing the job and disposing of <br /> dredged material; to seek conceptual agreement on the project; and to narrow <br /> the scope of Request for Proposal. They have $65,00O .of the $80,000 <br /> allocated at Town fleeting in 1996. The Mashpee River is very shallow. <br /> 'through studies they have learned the projected channels will neither <br /> improve or hurt the River. The Channel proposed is 4500 feet long, averaging <br /> o feet wide, 3 feet deep. Their design goals are to leave no plume, no salt i <br /> the fresh groundwater or at acceptable levels), no nutrients introduced into <br /> groundwater and to seek the lowest cost. 111 Boats were moored, docked or <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.