Laserfiche WebLink
develop runs utilizing various discharge sites. Mr. Fudala suggested defining the discharge areas and <br /> confirming use of existing plants to determine the most cost effective options. <br /> Discharge Sites to Eliminate: <br /> #b Keeter Property <br /> #2 Ashumet Rd.-Zone 2,P-11 well <br /> #5 High School-Zone 2 <br /> #3 Old Town <br /> #$, #9, #10, #11 <br /> Discharge Sites to Keep: <br /> #4 Transfer Station Site-Good location in Town for treatment plant in close proximity to development <br /> and with space to offer discharge, archeology ready to survey <br /> #7 New Seabury Golf Club <br /> Willowbend Golf Course <br /> 1-3 Back Road Sites-Site 1 Preferred <br /> Alternative Discharge Sites to Be Considered Only As Needed: <br /> #1 Heritage Park ball fields-Located in the Mashpee River watershed, not located close to development <br /> and partially located in Zone 2, but attenuation would be available with the Mashpee River <br /> 4 Back Road Site/Briarwood-Privately owned <br /> Lombardo Associates was asked about their sites to which Mr. Rubenstein responded that they had <br /> considered primarily open space. Mr. Lombardo suggested that sites located near lakes and ponds <br /> would require phosphorus removal and would result in increased costs. Mr. Fudala noted that volume <br /> would determine whether or not phosphorus removal would be needed. <br /> Regarding existing systems, Mr. Fudala felt strongly that treatments plants, such as at New Seabury, <br /> Mashpee Commons and Willowbend, should be utilized. Mr. Gregg clarified that upgrading facilities <br /> would be ideal but the expansion of existing systems to take advantage of other space could potentially <br /> be unnecessary. Mr. Lombardo suggested that the existing 5 Scenarios do not need to be altered. Mr. <br /> Fudala responded that the 5 Scenarios need to be refined with new information. Mr. Lombardo <br /> recommended that the numbers be refined while the Commission speaks with New Seabury and <br /> Willowbend about using their facilities, expanding their facility and/or utilizing their discharge area. <br /> Mr. Hall stated that the 5 Scenarios proved compliance with the surface water quality and the <br /> neighborhoods are known to repeat it and the discharge sites are known. Mar. Hall stated that it was <br /> more important to lock in the disposal sites and how to treat and transport, which is more costly than <br /> constructing a treatment system. Mr. Hall suggested that the disposal sites be refined before initiating <br /> public discussions. <br /> Mr. Gregg recommended running two potential additional scenarios by 1) rough areas that would meet <br /> the TMDLs and moving flow around to remove from the watersheds where needed and 2)the worse <br /> case scenario whether or not flow can be moved around the watershed. Mr. Fudala expressed interest <br /> in having Mr. Berrelli and he meet with the golf courses prior to running additional scenarios and <br /> would address issues of taking over the existing facility and utilizing the courses discharge_ Mr. Gregg <br /> felt that the conversation could occur without the flow. Mr. Berrelli noted that New Seabury has <br /> recently upgraded parts of their course and may have some concerns. Mr. Berrelli further noted that <br /> New Seabury may have additional thoughts regarding their facility such as whether or not they are <br /> making money or losing money on the plant. Mr. Gregg will ensure that numbers are provided to Mr. <br /> 5 <br />