Laserfiche WebLink
51 <br /> w <br /> depicted in purple, including int and the eastern portion of Wi . The four towns of <br /> Sandwich, Barnstable, lashpee and Falmouth were represented on the neap. The study area <br /> featured a total of t.7 nudlion gallons per day, including meas outside of the study area such as <br /> the Rock Landing well- wastewater flows were the only changes to the scenarios, nitrogen loads <br /> remained the sane, and discharge sites were assigned by GHD. Mr. Eichner noted that. some . <br /> discharge sites featured multiple parcels within thein and some decisions had been made <br /> regarding where the flow would be discharged, such as at Back Road site in the John's Fond <br /> watershed. <br /> Regarding option 1 A, Mr. Eichner stated that °/o of the wastewater within the study area <br /> would be discharged outside' of the two watersheds. Portions of Mashpee, Barnstable and <br /> Falmouth would be removed from the equation, totaling 1.5 million gallons. Some of the <br /> wastewater, totaling 1 million gallons or 38%of the total, uld be discharged at the lock <br /> Landing well site: of the remaining 43%wastewater within the study area, 18% would remain <br /> on septic systems, 14%would be treated to 3 mg/L total nitrogen(TN)and discharged at the <br /> Back Road site and the remaining would be treated at existing wastewater treatment plants. In <br /> response to Mr. Lombardo's question about the wastewater being discharged outside of the <br /> watersheds, Mr. Gregg stated that wastewater being pulled out of the watershed would be the <br /> responsibility of the towns of Sandwich, Bamstable and Falmouth. Each of the towns were in <br /> the midst of facilities planning. Mr. Lyons inquired about the total percentage of wastewater <br /> leaving the watershed and it was noted that the total was 19%for the three towns. Chairman <br /> Fudala inquired whether the discharge was at Rock Landing well or New Seaury golf course <br /> and Mr. Gregg responded that for the purposes of analysis, it did not matter which site was used <br /> s they were interchangeable with discharge entering the ocean. Mr. Gurnee inquired whether it <br /> was assumed that the 20% of wastewater going outside of the watershed would be severed and <br /> Mr-. Eichner responded that it was assumed that the nitrogen load associated with the wastewater <br /> would be completely removed. <br /> In option 1B, 13%of the wastewater, primarily from Falmouth and part of Barnstable, would be <br /> discharged outside the watershed area, leaving %inside of the watershed. Of the remaining <br /> wastewater, 12%would remain on septic systems and 4%would be treated to 3 m L TN and <br /> discharged at I l-sites throughout the watershed. Sandwich wastewater would be collected and <br /> discharged in the Peter's fond watershed* <br /> Option 1 C removed 26% of the wastewater from-Sandwich, Falmouth and parts of Barnstable <br /> while 4%remained inside lhe watershed. Standard septic systems would treat 18% of the <br /> wastewater, while 1°/ would be treated by cluster de-nites and 5 5%would be discharged at 10 <br /> sites. The Chair noted that option 1 C was similar to 1 A, except that flow would not be <br /> discharged at New Seabury or Rock Laming well. It was noted that I B utilized the I eeter <br /> property and that l A was the only scenario that utilized New Seabury/Rock Laming. <br /> Mr. Eichner described the restoration goals and targets of wastewater planning. In Popponesset <br /> Bay, the target was to restore eel grass with a target of 0.3 mg1L TN with infaunal habitat <br /> threshholds between .4 and .5 mg/L TN. In waqu it Bay, the target was 0.3 mg/L TN in Great <br /> and Little and 0,446 in Jehu with infaunal habitat threshhblds in Quashnet and Eel River. <br /> Explaining gable 3 in the technical memo,3r.Eichner noted that the three scrmnos were <br /> highlighted because they all met the*MDL thresholds. Fable 4 represented waquoit Bay-and <br /> 2 <br />