Laserfiche WebLink
j 5 <br /> Mr. Gregg reported that he assessed the 1 -areas in and around Mashpee, and where those areas <br /> would recharge based on the reap that was developed by the Sever Commission. Mr. Gregg <br /> noted that he would be meeting with Ed Eichner to confirm the flows to ensure consistency. Mr. <br /> r. <br /> Gregg mut a1 so review the-type of recharge being considered and the Poppon sset Bay PILOT <br /> Project verifications and the Chair noted that a similar approach would also be needed for <br /> aquoit. Mr. Gregg noted that Waquoit was estimated through the"Fair Share Scenario," but <br /> that future flow could cause complications. fir. Fudala stated that the plan would be based on <br /> build out development. Mr. Lyons inquired about the build out and Mr. Fudala responded'that it <br /> was 22,000 for year round residents and 32,000 for the summer population and were based, on <br /> approved permitted projects. Mr. Gregg clarified that he was not developing the flows based on <br /> population but looking at water use values in order to crepe water flow values, which was based <br /> on three years of Mashpee water District.figures. There was discussion regarding the flows and <br /> recharge areas and Mr. Gregg noted that he was looking at the `big picture" map to consider the <br /> amount of flow and its treatment areas. Mr. Gregg referenced the hydraulic load tests at Site 4 to <br /> determine the amount of water that could be accom odated in an open sand bed because they <br /> offer a more cost effective option, and spray irrigation coudd be a challenge to address with <br /> regulators. Mr. Lyons inquired whether there were.results available for Site 4 and Mr. Gregg <br /> responded that the engineer indicated that there was a high capacity for water. Mr. Gregg noted <br /> that the state would allow for sandy sails. Mr. Lyons inquired about the impact to the aquifer <br /> and the Chair responded that it would be treated at a higher level than it is currently and that the <br /> sand pits would not b located in well recharge areas. Mr. Gregg highlighted the recharge sites. <br /> Site I Herta a Park Ball Fields' <br /> Site 2/Back Roads& Ashumet Property <br /> Site Transfer Station-The only site that bas been tested,but located in the Mashpee <br /> River watershed. The Chair suggested the possibility bf using will wbend during the year and <br /> Site 4 during the summer for the peak flow. <br /> Site High School-Existing facility and ball fields for potential recharge. The Chair <br /> stated that the School Committee did not support recharge and it was suggestedthat treated <br /> effluent-be piped to the Johns Fond site. <br /> Site6/Keeter Property-There.was discussion about using the Keeter Property and not <br /> using it. The site is located rear the fire station on Red Brook Road. <br /> Site 7 l ew Seabury Golf Course <br /> Mr. Klenert inquired about testing the render of the sites and the Chair responded that the <br /> budget had-been used to test the Transfer Station Site and that other sites would need to be <br /> assessed based on the current information available. The Chair added that,New Seabury <br /> conducted a mounding study in 2000. Mr. Gregg noted that recent discussion with the Sewer <br /> Commission included an expansion of New Seabury and Wi.l lowbend, as well as the addition of <br /> several properties, m' chiding the Back Road properties. Mr. Gregg further summarized the sites. <br /> Site7/New Seabury Golf Course-few Seabury area flow would go to New Seabury or <br /> expanded New Seabury with recharge at its testing facility and fairways. Chairman Fudala <br /> noted that if New Seabury was unavailable, the Keeter Site would be used for recharge. <br /> Site6/Keeter Property-The Keeter Site would pick up the islands, Falmouth and other <br /> areas, recharging at the Keeter Site and New-Seabury. Chairman Fudala a noted that the Keeter <br /> 5 <br />