Laserfiche WebLink
Ir <br /> • 5 , <br /> other towns, adding that"Scenario I 'would mean that the flow from those areas would be <br /> handled by their own tons and not Mahpe. <br /> Chairman Fudala inquired about the likelihood of Barnstable not sending its flow to Mashpee <br /> since they do not have the property for a facility. Mr. Gregg indicated that the scenario assumes <br /> that Barnstable would handle the flow as part of their planning process and outside of the <br /> Popponesset watershed. Mr. Gregg noted that willowbend would offer a greater capacity than <br /> the Mashpee River area. Mr_ Gregg also indicated that there had been preliminary discussion <br /> with Sandwich, who recently began working on their wastewater issues, pointing out again that <br /> the scenario assumed that the towns would be removing and relocating the flow outside of the <br /> Popponesset or Eastern waquoit watershed, <br /> Regarding Mashpee in"Scenario 1 .,"Mr. Gregg noted that there would be some areas that <br /> would not be addressed and that the septic systems would remain. Additionally,, smaller <br /> facilities may remain at 10 nig. per liter such as Stratford Fonds, Cotuit Meadows, vampanoag <br /> Village, windchime Point and South Cape Village. All other flows would be directed to Rock <br /> Landing, including the flows from the high school, Southport and Mashpee Commons. <br /> y <br /> Mr. Gregg referenced the Site 4 discharge-site with open sand beds and the possibility of 50% of <br /> the site being used, loading 5 gallons per clay per square foot. Mr. Gregg noted that all flows <br /> being discussed would be based on average annual conditions and n MU results. Mr. Gregg <br /> stated that, when developing wastewater treatment facilities, peak month flows must also be <br /> considered and addressed. Mr. Greggnoted that the state requires that effluent disposal must <br /> also be able to handle all that the trent facility can handle. Yellow areas on the map <br /> represent the average annual conditions but supplemental discharge for pew times would be <br /> needed at New Seabury. Mr. Gregg stated that facilities planning will result in a phased <br /> approach so, although buildout flows are not currently in place, planning must consider the <br /> future conditions. 11 . Gregg also stated that this scenario did not tale into account other <br /> measures implemented to reduce the nitrogen load, such as.reductions in fertilizer use and <br /> stornwater runoff which could help reduce some wastewater treatment. Mr. Gregg added that <br /> attenuation, which-has not yet been included, may alio result in improved numbers. Mr. Lyons <br /> inquired about the Mate's nitrogen'load number in storrnwater runoff and fertilizer-and Mr. <br /> Gregg responded that the figure was located in the MEP report and suggested that the <br /> concentrations varied. Mar. Klenert expressed concern about the current stormwater systems <br /> discharging to the water, as well as the attenuation of nitrogen and plumes from development. <br /> Mr. Klenert emphasized the importance of educating residents and discouraging the disposal of <br /> substances into septic systems. <br /> Mr. Gurnee inquired about the steady state flow, Mr. Gregg responded that he'could not spear.to <br /> 'the MEP model but noted that the modeling takes into account a load moving to the watershed <br /> which gets to a steady state situation under the conditions that were presented. Mr. Gregg is <br /> developing an approach and future plan for the Town, using information from 1 , to meet the <br /> TMDL targets and provides the inputs for NIEP modeling. Should the modeling show <br /> improvements in water quality, it could allow the Town to adjust the plan in future years. Mr. <br /> Gurnee expressed concern about not meeting the targets at the monitoring stations in 20 years <br /> because of the time needed to flush out the nitrogen, after investing funds into the system. Mr. <br /> 2 <br />