My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/20/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
5/20/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2018 5:26:00 PM
Creation date
2/26/2018 2:48:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/20/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
i <br /> 20 May 1999 <br /> Page 6. <br /> Mr. wollenh upt someone should be monitoring it. <br /> Ms. F'antoz i asked for how long, ten years? Mr. wollenhaupt did not think <br /> ten years was necessary, but could not give a time frame. She stated they <br /> would reed to know that. <br /> Mr. Sherman suggested he and Ms Fantozzi sit down to discuss what seems <br /> prudent or reasonable. <br /> Mr. wirsen asked if dry for four months this year, would it fall under the <br /> criteria of an intermittent stream? Ms Fantozzi stated absolutely yes, but it <br /> only needs to be dry to months. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated either this goes into some kind of a measurement <br /> program that is agreed upon, or do riot accept the plan as delineating <br /> correctly the intermittent Aream portion. If they do not wart to change the <br /> plan, they would have to go into some sort of monitoring protocol. There i <br /> another element to discuss and then a determination ofhove to proceed can be <br /> made. <br /> Ms Fanto zi advised the other part is the mouth where these drain into <br /> Shoestring Bay. The channel ends here, in terms of the stream, as they are <br /> defining it. She showed photographs and stated there is no channel that <br /> connects the end of this point. At this it is a drainage system of the marsh. <br /> She and Bob had a disagreement as he wants to call any flowing water in the <br /> system as a river. Salt water data shows water testing. She displayed a <br /> series of photos on the channel. They did perform salinity tests. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he only received those test results this evening and has <br /> had no chance to analyze them. <br /> Ms F'antoz i advised the samples were taken at high tide at three elevations. <br /> During high tide, all samples were considered salt. There was no <br /> stratification, it was all salt. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated it has been discussed and he agrees with Ms Fantozzi <br /> that the discernible channel is lost in this portion (pointing) and at low tide <br /> you pick up another discernible channel through which mainly fresh water is <br /> seeping. IVIS Fantozzi stated there is fresh water seepage, that is correct, but <br /> not flow. Mr. Sherman stated if it is seeping in, it must be flowing out at low <br /> tide. He maintains that there is a discontinuity here and he would not call <br /> that river but there is nothing in the Begs that says a river has to be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.