2005-SEWER COMMISSION - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Tom thinks treating north, south, middle of town are not scenarios but a timing issue—which area do we do first to meet the target- its one scenario then deciding on the timing of implementation. Pilot Project: fair share between the 3 towns, that scenario has to be on the table. Ed Baker anticipates sharing financial responsibilities with the other towns so the scenario should have information on sub watershed by town. Determine whose piece of the TMDL are we talking about? Jeff Gregg said in achieving TMDL, from wastewater is the easiest to regulate and manage, as compared to fertilizer, storm water. S & W will meet the TMDLs with wastewater. Have to make assumptions about storm water, fertilizer and atmospheric deposition. They can identify non wastewater loads but it is irrelevant to the wastewater management scenarios. Ed Baker said it is not irrelevant when it gets into the watershed. At build out, each sub watershed has a fixed number for each non wastewater load. He is suggesting that number, by sub watershed by town be presented as a fixed number plus the wastewater number to determine what the sub watershed produces. Tom Cambarari said if you are overly concerned about who will pay for it (which town), it will undermine the process. Tom Fudala said Mashpee needs to show a scenario to the other town that meets the target, and share with them what they have to do. Ed asked if load information is developed by lot, then impervious surfaces, etc are not included? Jeff is not sure why that is critical to the scenarios? Ed said it is part of nutrient management analysis: how much nitrogen is coming out of a watershed, which is the summation of a number of things. The information should be generated to the best data source. Ken Malloy asked what town boundaries have to do with it. S & W should come up with best scenarios and worry later who will pay for it. Tom Fudala said the plan needs to determine what is most cost effective. Tom C. said cost estimate scenarios are different than MEP model scenarios. Ed Baker suggested running a simple scenario, one we would not even price out, connected every wastewater producing property in both watersheds to a treatment plant at 5 ppm discharge and run the model. How does that meet the need. Ed Baker said existing condition are based on 2000/01, which is very old information. Tom said the new build out numbers since that time it not very different, based on permitted developments they knew were coming. Rick York believes the plan should be to implement high density waterfront areas first. We have already lost the ell grass and the fish are next. This will keep additional nitrogen out sooner and we can prevent further degradation. Our waterfronts are being shut down to boating, swimming, shellfishing etc. The Mashpee River is slime and seaweed and fish kills, it is unnavigable. We have to do that first. Ed said it depends on occupancy rates. Ed's opinion is we need output by sub watershed by town. What numbers are being generated and how are they being generated.