My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/27/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
07/27/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2018 5:12:21 PM
Creation date
2/28/2018 12:48:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/27/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
27 July 2000 <br /> Page 10. <br /> one in the deep basin, one around the periphery. They are looking at doing <br /> the sampling before, during and after. In addition to doing the short term <br /> implementation, they are looking for safety of aquatic life. They want to see <br /> what difference this makes in the phosphorus. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if they would by looking at methyl mercury? It was <br /> stated they were not. Mr. Sherman asked why not` Dr. Mitchell stated in <br /> terms of the short term impact of that, or this treatment on that, he did not <br /> believe they would see a response. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the reason he brought it up is that there is a paragraph <br /> stating it could do one thing and could do another thing and Bill Fisher's <br /> associate indicated he had some thoughts on it too. It is something that <br /> should be focused upon. <br /> Mr. smith stated the literature reviewed strongly indicates that there should <br /> not be a problem. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the Notice of Intent says there may be more, there may <br /> be less and he felt the Commission needs to know. He was told in the short <br /> run, or the long run., the effect will almost certainly be a significant <br /> reduction. Mr. Sherman stated that is not what is said in 'the Notice of <br /> Intent. This is one of the areas that needs further clarification. <br /> Dr. Mitchell stated in addition to the chemistry, one of the things- that came <br /> out from some applications is the question about the conditions under which <br /> work has been done. A slide was shown of the alum treatment in Hamblin <br /> Pond and what looks like a sinking barge clue to large wave action. One of <br /> the,things that will be done is to put limits on the amount of wind and wave <br /> action that will be considered acceptable. A depth meter will be utilized to <br /> ensure the application is really at the correct depth. <br /> The Chair asked if they are proposing an addition to the Notice of Intent <br /> which will state all of these things? A whole host of conditions is being <br /> discussed that will have to be met. He was told the meteorological <br /> conditions are covered ,by the Notice of Intent. He stated they do not tell <br /> what the standards are. The Commission needs specifics. <br /> ]fir. Mitchell stated the key factor is probably the wind, in terns of wave <br /> action. The Notice of Intent speaks of 10 knots which is about 12 mph. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.