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-0. <br /> supplements indicate that some of the monitoring will be the responsibility of <br /> the contractor, their experience and capacities there and details of the <br /> monitoring. <br /> Mr. Smith assured that only experienced contractors can bid on this <br /> particular procurement, that is one of the qualifying criteria, the experience. <br /> They will have this shortly. <br /> } <br /> Dr. Mitchell stated, in terms of the monitoring and experience, that is <br /> critical. Looking at the depth is also critical. As to the size of the barge, most <br /> people have looped at a variety. <br /> The Chair stated it did not mare sense to showy the Commission a variety <br /> now. The Commission has to be sure, based on the pond, entrance to the <br /> pond and various other things what boat is going into the eater, hove it is <br /> going to be handled, what the capacity of its tanks are, how they propose that <br /> the tanks will be loaded, that there will be shore-side tanks to contain the <br /> material which is going to be loaded in the boat. All of those details are <br /> needed and must be approved. In addition, a detailed scheme is needed for <br /> the monitoring and the reporting of the monitoring to Mr. Sherman and the . <br /> Commission's other people. <br /> Mr. Sheerman asked if Dr. Mitchell is going to be retained as the on-going <br /> person to supervise the actual application. Dr. Mitchell stated he was. Mr. <br /> Sherman stated the continuity would be important. ; <br /> M . smith stated Jacobs Engineering has been working with then on the <br /> Base on many protects. r. Mitchell is a sub-contractor to Jacobs. They are <br /> going forward with the project, Conservation willing, and Dr. Kitchell will be <br /> responsible. <br /> Dr. Mitchell stated he cannot speak to which barge will be used, etc. until the <br /> contractor is known. It is reasonable of the Commission to request those. In <br /> teras of tho oversight and monitoring, the application will be very carefully. <br /> scrutinized. The contractor will monitor the pH but the pH and alkaline will <br /> be monitored by Jacobs on that-same play. He will be looking over people's <br /> shoulders. Daily reports will be provided. <br /> Dr. Mitchell stated these items are from the Notice of Intent. That <br /> information has already been provided in the description of the treatment <br /> provided in the Notice of Intent. They will establish four monitoring stations, <br /> r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.