Laserfiche WebLink
watershed, but expressed concern that not enough had been done for Mashpee River. '1 rlr. Gregg <br /> responded that there were many issues in the watershed associated with not meeting the <br /> threshold, which was why it needed to run through the modeling, adding that somesub- <br /> watersheds did not meet the threshold. Mr. Gurnee inquired about the reasons why�&. Gregg <br /> felt that Option IB was worse than option I A and Mr. Gregg responded that it was because <br /> Sandwich flow remained within the Popponesset Bay watershed and that Barnstable would <br /> -remain in the watershed. There was discussion about the Keefer property and the need for more <br /> information about the site through the USGS solute transport and MEP modeling. <br /> Mr. Gregg summarized the next steps as reviewing comments from the Commission, meeting <br /> with MEP, running the model and building the scenarios. Mr. Lyons inquired about creating <br /> Option C to develop a clean comparison. Chairman Fudala recommended having Option 1 <br /> leave Barnstable/Sandwich a in option IA and have option IC be like option IB. 11r.[r. Gregg <br /> disagreed and Chairman Fudala then summaries that option 1 C.would not have Rock <br /> Landing/New Seabury and that Barnstable and Sandwich flows would go outside of the <br /> watershed. The comparison would then be between C and A regarding New Seabury and Rock <br /> Landing and B and C would compare toms in versus towns out. <br /> Mr. Lyons inquired about option IB which indicated that there was no margin in error been <br /> the Jehufflamblin Pond total in the preliminary estimates and Mr. Gregg responded that it may <br /> have been influenced by the Ieetr Property. The Chair added that the watershed haid always <br /> been the toughest one to address. There was discussion about the direction of the flow and the <br /> significant changes based on the amount of the flow. The Chair rcnunended moving the <br /> discharge further east since Jehu Pond was difficult to address and Mr. Gregg responded that the <br /> flow needed to-go beneath ockway Day- r else it would have a detrimental effect on ockway <br /> Bay. Mr. Gregg emphasized the importance of utilizing 1ffiP in order to get the information <br /> about habitat impacts, such as eelgrass. <br /> Mr. Lyons inquired about whether Mashpee was better seared by discharging further south. <br /> Chairman Fudala responded that % attenuation could be achieved by going north through the <br /> ponds. There was discussion about the level of'treatment needed and consideration o <br /> watersheds with higher capacity or higher attenuation. <br /> Chairman Fudala requested that the three options be compiled and updated in-the-report to be <br /> considered at the next meeting. The Chair also recommended that Mr. Gregg spear with Mr. <br /> Mason of Sandwich and the MEP people. Mr. Gregg noted that he would follow up regarding <br /> f the Sandwich 40B and the Forestdale School.. Mr. Gregg will'also incorporate the A <br /> subdivisions of Anthony's way and Equestrian give. <br /> Mr. Lyons suggested that the Conmiission had ruched a turning point and that the modeled <br /> options could provide an opportunity leading to a presentation to the-Town. Mr. Lyons <br /> recommended that it be identified as the 2011 Modeling in order to differentiate it from the prior <br /> scenarios. Chairman Fudala confirmed that the previous scenarios provided information about <br /> mandated technologies and costs and that the 2011 modeling would provide information about <br /> identifying the best discharge sites. <br /> Mr. Gregg inquired about the Johns Pond-open space. Chairman Fudala reported that the <br /> shoreline of Johns Pond was part of Southport and that there were tree or four parcels, one of � <br /> 6 <br />