3/21/2013 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

comments received.from.the last two Notice ofProject Changes from 2007 and 2012. Mr. Gregg suggested his desire to acquire more information from the Sever Commission regarding cluster areas. Mr. Gregg indicated that recharge locations and loading option areas had been considered, and identified the treating processes. Mr. Gregg stated that, upon completion of the draft, he would present the refined draft ofthe altemative screening process to the Serer Commission, Mr. Fudal a inquired whether the draft document would compare alternatives in order to eliminate r pursue certain alternatives, and referenced Falmouth's eco-toilets. Mr. Gregg responded that some elements had been eliminated but that he hoped-to address additional issues at this evening's meeting. Mr. Gregg noted that part of the plan would include the next steps and further evaluations required in order to move toward the next approvals, such as the impact of the shellfish. Mr. Gregg referenced Falmouth's pilot projects and suggested the possibility that aspects of Mashpee's recommended plan could build on Falmouth's efforts or develop pilot work in Mashpee. The Chair emphasized that the Commission was working within a short time frame-due to the future combined Water/Sever District and,n ted-that Mashpee would be held accountable for the utilized SRF funds. Mr. Gregg responded that a recommended plan could be developed based upon one scenario, but added that there were unknowns, such as MN R, shellfish or eco-toilets, that could alter the plan in the future. Mr. Gregg inquired whether the Conunissi n.wanted the plan to be Mashpee focused with neighboring communities' efforts outlined, but addressed by those communities. The Chair agreed, stating that he did not sec an IMA being in dace soon. 11r. Gregg responded that should-an IIIA be developed, scenarios had been run considering neighboring communities and the possibility of Mashpee picking up those flogs. Chairman Fudala indicated that Barnstable was the only town that had shun interest in cooperation, but that Mashpee knew about plans being considered in Sandwich and Falmouth. The Chair recommended that Mashpee develop a plan to meet l a hpee's responsibility, but leave an option for an IMA or other options and technologies that may become available. Mr. Gregg noted that the early years of the plan would be well-defined; but-that the later years would e more open, .reflecting a traditional approach, but determined by.results achieved from adaptive management such as the shellfish program, I R s or eco-toilets. Mr. Lyons noted that. the Sever Commission was tasked with solving Mashpee's problem only and recommended development of a plan that.reflected current knowledge, Mr. Gregg added-that the last model runs reflected-the framework o - lashpee's plan, including locations of treatment, recharge, watershed impacts and model results, including the leve. of treatment. Mr. Gregg indicated that he would also be developing maps and criteria for feedback and recommended that individuals not get bogged down with details regarding the technology t be used prior to the design phase of planning. When faced With considering estimates, Mr. Gregg noted that It was better to be faced with conservative higher estimates in the planning resulting in a possible lover estimate later. Mr. Gregg also stated that financial commitments would be set in increments as part of the planning. There was discussion regarding costs and the types of systems to be considered for various locations in Mashpee as well as Zone II regulations involving reverse osmosis. There was further discussion regarding eco-toilets, regulations and potential cluster sites. Mr. Gregg expressed interest in learning more about the Sewer Commission's locations for potential cluster sites and inquired whether the Commission wished to consider going to 3 r g 2