My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/21/2011 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes
>
6/21/2011 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/2/2020 9:59:11 AM
Creation date
1/2/2019 1:52:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
SEWER COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/21/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Gregg stated that,regardless of recharge, a significant amount of wastewater must be removed <br /> from the watershed. The Chair inquired about what Rock Landing could handle in regard to <br /> sand filter beds and I1 . Gregg responded that he provided an estimate used on acreage. The <br /> Chair inquired whether well logs would be useful and Mr. Gregg responded that he estimated <br /> one half million gallons of capacity. <br /> The Chair requested a best case scenario, Mr. Gregg indicated that he could modify Option 1, <br /> with Barnstable and Falmouth handling their wastewater. The Chair noted that Barnstable <br /> intended to sewer the top half of the town. lute weeks, G ,reported that Barnstable was in <br /> the early stages of their CWMP and have expressed interest in pursuing the inter-municipal <br /> agreement. Mr. weeks stated that it would be too early to speculate how they would address <br /> their share of l opponesset. Chairman Fudala expressed concern that Mashpee's capacity may <br /> not be sufficient to address the needs of Barnstable and Falmouth. <br /> Mr, I lenert inquired about the next step. Mr. Gregg responded that he needed feedback in order <br /> to refine the scenarios. There was additional discussion regarding Mashpee River. Mr. Gregg <br /> would have the models run with 1F, maintaining some septic system flow in the watershed <br /> areas with capacity that would not impact the sentinel station and ensuring a balance to meet the <br /> thresholds. Mr. Klenert inquired about the point at which one option would become the better <br /> choice and lir. Gregg responded that a cost analysis would follow the model run. <br /> Mr. Gurnee inquired about the possibility that the entire town may not meed to be severed with <br /> the use ofNew Seabury. Mr. Gregg responded that there was approximately 200,000 gallons of <br /> flow that would not be addressed with the hope that MEP could assist in making i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.