Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 1 <br /> Residence Times <br /> Existing Dredging Scenario <br /> 6 <br /> Ernba t Conditions 1 2 3 <br /> 4 5 <br /> Popponesset <br /> Bay Estuary 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 <br /> Ockway Bay 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.6 <br /> Shoestring Bay 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 3,6 <br /> Mashee River 142 13.2 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.8 13.0 <br /> Mashpee River <br /> Tidal Prism <br /> 00*103) 6,300 6,800 7,1Qo 7,200 7,400 7,100 7,100 <br /> Dredging <br /> Volt�rr�e (yd3) 0 39,QC0 39,000 63,00(1 115,000 45,000 99,000 <br /> re- <br /> Base., on a cz, .parlson of the residence tip°s i� <br /> Table 1 between existing <br /> Conditions and dredging ecen:iri��s 1 through 4, the fr;�lio«`i`�g conclusions were <br /> developed: <br /> • Removing tnc� shoal at the mouth (.If i�,.ashpee ;liver (Scenario 1) would <br /> this arF.a, increasing the tidal prism by 500,000 cubic feet <br /> improve tidal fluwhing of <br /> • <br /> Dredging m <br /> a small channel (30 ft wide with a 3 ft miilirnum depth at law <br /> tide) in Mashpee Rivcr (Scenarios 2-4) also would improve tidal flu'shing' <br /> + Dredging scenario 2 provides the rn()st efiicient improvement to trial <br /> r. Residence time would be decreased by 1 ,4 days: a ten <br /> flushing in Mashpee Rive <br /> percent improvement to tidal flushing. <br /> a Dredging scenarios 3 and 4 effect a slight additional reduction. L the <br /> Mashpee River residence time: however, the slight improvement may not be <br /> justified 'oy the cost t)f dredging significant lengths <br /> en ithsOf channel a as, or more, ofas9ce dredging ovr. <br /> er <br /> Por instance, scenario 4 would require 40,000 y _ <br /> scer►ario 2, with only a Q.2 day impravcmeil� tothe <br /> tR verA(br� ndiver re6dence 1,000 ft) would e <br /> Dredging a long channel upstri:am ill lvlaz+ E Y <br />