Laserfiche WebLink
added that the Plan would be drafted in such a way that adjustments could be made since it <br /> would extend over a period of 20 years or more. <br /> Nor. Klenert expressed concern about the long range plans and the length of time for which the <br /> permit would be valid. -Mr. Gregg responded-that MEPA would issue a certificate stating that the <br /> Plan was appropriate and the Plan would then be reviewed.by the State DEP who would monitor <br /> the efforts of the Town in achieving the goals of the Plan. Mr. Gregg clarified that a permit <br /> would not be acquired until a facility was being built. Mr. Gregg also noted that existing <br /> facilities are each permitted for 5 gears, and thea would be eligible to be re-permitted every <br /> years thereafter. <br /> Mr. Gurnee inquired whether modeling data, which had been based on build-out conditions, was <br /> available to assist with phasing the project. Mr. Gregg responded that phasing would be <br /> determined based on a combination of costing and the planning of other Town activities. Much <br /> of the phasing would,be determined by the location of existing infrastructure,the location of <br /> existing flows versus future flows, developed areas and seasonal areas, all of which would be <br /> included in the recommended plan.. Mr. Gregg noted that Mashpee included many existing <br /> wastewater treatment facilities and a decision may need to be made as to whether the Town takes . <br /> on the plants or whether the plants will be required to treat to 3 mg/L with future expansion. Mr. <br /> Gurnee emphasized the need to get the biggest bang for the buck. Mr. Gregg confirmed that data <br /> was available to identify the location of wastewater generation. Chairman F'udala stated that the <br /> intensity of wastewater load per acre was napped out for existing 4nd build-out conditions <br /> approximately 8 years ago. The Chair stated that the MEP was based on the existing load in <br /> 2001. Build-out numbers have since changed and have been adjusted. Chairman Fudala also <br /> stated that existing conditions for 2010 were unnecessary since the plan was focused on meeting <br /> the TITIN targets at build-out. <br /> Mr. Lyons agreed but noted that placement between now and build-out would offer the biggest <br /> bang for the buck in the estuaries by cleaning up today's problems. Chairman F'ud la stated that <br /> the Town would need to determine which area to address first and that properties with <br /> enforcement orders were known wn a well as the location of intense developments with septic <br /> systems. Mr. Gurnee emphasized the need for analysis and quantitative feedbag. The Chair <br /> responded that it was built 'nto the process with continued monitoring of the bays' monitoring <br /> stations. <br /> Mr. Gurnee questioned the validity Of the outputs from the modeling. Chairman F'udala <br /> responded that scientists who reviewed the model recommended using it for planning. It was <br /> suggested that the target could change but Chairman udala stated that the targets were based on <br /> ecology by the DEP and EPA and would not change. The Chair added that a phased approach <br /> was needed, addressing the`flow hanging fruit>' first, and while building over the long term, <br /> review the monitoring in order to make adjustments to the plan as necessary. <br /> Chairman F'udala referenced the description of the three scope elements and requested a re-write <br /> f , C and D so that they were a better match to what had been discussed. Mr. Hall of GH <br /> suggested that they could-work out the specific language with Mr. Gobell. Mr. Hall suggested <br /> thel osibilit y of inluding 6 B, C, with 8B in order to achieve what was negotiated <br /> 2 <br />