2/21/2013 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

z monthly effluent and influent nitrogen and monitoring well samples. Mr. Gobell distributed copies of the Mashpee Commons report and described the content of the graphs. Mr. Gobell indicated that he would be developing a report for each of the wastewater facility plants. fir. Lombardo recommended adding groundwater elevations, Mr. Fudala stated that the 'Information would be useful as the town assessed the effectiveness of the plants. 'workshop on Development of Draft Final Plan Status of Existing Private WWTPs Chairman Fudala referenced the neap and location of existing sewered neighborhoods, noting that some private treatment plants had excess capacity that could serve adjacent neighborhoods. The Chair also noted the possibility of taking over plants, such as willo bend, New Seabury and Mashpee Commons and possibly expanding the facilities. Chairman Fudala pointed out the possibility of tying into the New Seabury treatment plant and placing shellfish in the pond to address issues in Jehu pond although Mr. Gurnee suggested that it may have a modest impact, recommending a focus on a higher density area. There was further discussion about addressing the New Seabury area. F Non-wastewater Treatment actions Mr. York distributed copies of the Shellfish Ilan for Nitrogen Removal and announced that he i had received funding support, from the CPC to fund the seeding of Great River and the Mashpee River, targeting family shellfishing. Mr. York also distributed copies of the CPC application. Mr. York stated that the eventual plan for the 'Town would be to harvest 1 million oysters for families.in Mashpee River, removing'10% of nitrogen while the gibe would remove an additional 0%to reduce the Mashpee River nitrogen load by half In the Jehu Pond, Hamblin Pond Great River and Little River area., 100%of nitrogen would be removed with approximately 20 million little necks. Mr. York confirmed that monitoring was already in place, in collaboration with the Town, the Tribe and SMaS T, to rnor for the effectiveness of the shellfish- In the first year, Mr. York expected that 20%would be removed in the first year but that it was likely the small amount would not show in the monitoring until it was a larger percentage. Mr. York stated that Great River would be seeded this year, followed by Jehu and/or Ockway Bay. Where was further discussion regarding the specifics of monitoring and chlorophyll. Mr. Eisner inquired further about the monitoring and whether there was a plan to also focus on benthic. lir. York emphasized that solid data was available to confirm that the shellfish would be removing the nitrogen due to the analysis available from the Industrial Food Lab and the County Extension. There was discussion about expanding�hpee's monitoring. Mr. Eisner confirmed that TMDL compliance was still somewhat undefined, but that he had encouraged communities to be prepared to present their results to the Mate. Mr. Gobell indicated that he would life the basic monitoring requirements corn the Mate. Mr. York suggested that Mashpee already offered more than most towns in their post-TMDL monitoring. Mr. Gregg inquired about shellfish propagation in the Mashpee River, resulting in nitrogen removal, and whether the existing Mashpee Commons facility, discharging in the same area., could be expanded with recharge at a higher treatment level, thereby providing an offset. It was stated that half of the nitrogen would be removed from the Mashpee River. There was discussion regarding whether the Mashpee River figures represented the current load or buildout, lr. Eisner suggested that the figure may be from existing conditions. fir. Lombardo agreed with Mr. Gregg and recommended additional polishing treatments to remove additional nitrogen. 2 y