My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/18/2011 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes
>
10/18/2011 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/2/2020 10:05:51 AM
Creation date
1/2/2019 2:06:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
SEWER COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/18/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
r <br /> Chair also inquired about the Forestdale School and Mr. Gregg responded that it was seri out of <br /> the watershed. The Chair suggested that Mr. Gregg follow up with Dave Mason in Sandwich. <br /> Referencing fair sere, and flow being sent out of the area,Mr. Gurnee inquired what would <br /> happen during the modeling. Mr. Gregg confirmed that modeling would provide results o <br /> whether or not targets would be met for the areas with a natural flow included, but the <br /> wastewater not included. Mr. Gurnee inquired about how to decide what would be severed i <br /> such information as fair share was incorrect. Mr. Gregg responded that it would occur in the <br /> plan during tho,phasing process and would be adaptive over time. fir. Gregg confirmed that the <br /> actions of neighboring towns would impact Mashpee but that Mashpee must ecus on what they <br /> must do first. Mr. Gurnee inquired about a tuning issue with the flog and whether areas should <br /> e addressed closer to the bays to demonstrate to the Mate the efforts to meet the TMDL . W. <br /> Gregg responded that it would be determined during phasing and based on the cost implications.- <br /> Mr. <br /> mplications:Mr. Gregg added that the first stage of phasing would be dealing with the location of existing <br /> facilities and where Mashpee could get the biggest bang for their buck, which would be the-areas <br /> closest to the ernbayrnents. IVB-. Gregg also noted that adaptive management Will be used since <br /> data received from monitoring may allow changes to the planning. <br /> In discussing the option 1 A flows,Mr. Gregg highlighted the table depicting the estimated <br /> future average annual flow, peaking the value when recharging in various service areas to ensure <br /> that discharge capacities will be sufficient at the discharge sites. Mr. Gregg explained that the <br /> red area represented Rock Landing with open sand beds, but with active well saes requiring <br /> relocation, so it could meet the targets or the balance of the#love may need to be directed to Nev <br /> Seabury. Rock Landing may offer a maximum of 1.5 million gpd. The Chair added that the <br /> New Seabury driving range was nearby. <br /> Regarding Option 1B, Mr. Gregg explained the biggest difference as not using New Seabury and <br /> Rock Landing but.instead utilizing the Keeter property. Portions ofBarnstable and Falmouth <br /> would be treated and discharged in Mashpee and Sandwich would remain within the <br /> Popponesset Bay watershed. Chairman Fudala suggested that factors, such as the neighboring <br /> towns, should remain the me in both options o better compare the options. fir. Lyons <br /> - p p y <br /> suggested that option 1B provided the worst case scenario. Mr. Gregg inquired whether the <br /> Commission wished to have a third option and 11r. Lyons recommended acquiring the <br /> information from the two options prior to requesting a third. The Chair stated that the two <br /> options could not be fairly compared as they currently existed and suggested that it might be best <br /> to consider a third option, Mr. Gurnee agreed. Mr. Gregg suggested considering which option <br /> would be most realistic for the surrounding towns, basing the two scenarios on what was <br /> believed to occur in,the other towns. Mr. Gregg agreed that it would be good to compare two <br /> scenarios based on using Rock LandigfNv Seabury but inquired about the intent of the other <br /> toms, emphasizing the benefits of pursuing a regional approach for funding and implementation <br /> ponoses. Chairman Fudala stated that the representation oBarnstable in option 1 A was the <br /> closest to what their committee was considering. Regardmng Sandwich, Chairman Fudala stated <br /> that the 40B should be reflected since the flow would remain in the watershed and that the <br /> Golden Triangle project may remove flow from the watershed. <br /> Robert Steen of Wright Pierce, working with Sandwich, stated that the needs assessment was <br /> expected to be completed by the end of the year. Mr. Steen clarified that the interim wastewater <br /> Solution was considering the South Sandwich village Center and Indust al Farb area, but that it <br /> may not be the ultimate plan for the town. IIS-. Steen confirmed that there was a private <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.