Laserfiche WebLink
New Developments/Existing Development Requiring Wastewater Treatment Plants <br /> No discussion beyond Breezy Acres as indicated above <br /> Potential USGS Solute Transport Modeling <br /> Don Walter from USGS contacted the Chair and reported that their contract to develop solute transport <br /> modeling had been extended I year. Chairman Fudala stated that once the Commission provides a scenario <br /> for modeling, they will model it for Mashpee. <br /> Initial Work on Laying Out Facility Plans <br /> The Chair referenced the 5 scenarios developed by GHD and Lombardo Associates as approaches to a <br /> facilities plan and recommended initiating the plan by first identifying discharge areas. SMaST <br /> recommended that the Commission be cautious about discharge in the Mashpee River and Quashnet River <br /> watersheds and utilize the"golden opportunity" at New Seabury to discharge additional wastewater under <br /> the golf course. Although located in the Mashpee River watershed, Site#4 has remained on the list since <br /> Town land outside of Zone 2 is limited. Areas marked in red at Willowbend are areas that have been <br /> discussed with Willowbend as discharge sites. The high school ball fields and Heritage Park fields have <br /> been eliminated because of their proximity to the Quashnet River watershed and new sites have been <br /> identified in the areas north of Johns and Moody Pond. The new sites have not yet had USGS modeling <br /> completed but offer a good option since additional attenuation will occur from running through the ponds, <br /> but will require oversight so as not to input additional phosphorous to the ponds. <br /> Chairman Fudala highlighted the discharge area at Willowbend and the New Seabury site, with an existing <br /> 300,000 gallons, noting that the discharge capacity totals I million gallons if New Seabury allows it. <br /> Regarding New Seabury, the Chair questioned placing discharge at the root zone or 2 feet down. Mr. Gregg <br /> cautioned about the disruption of the golf course by installing 2 feet down when drip irrigation typically is <br /> placed at a depth of 6-8 inches. Mr. Gregg suggested that if the Commission considers installation 2 feet <br /> down, they may be better served by rebuilding the golf course. Mr. Gregg suggested that modeling could be <br /> completed to determine what will work best in order to deal with the problem but also more detailed analyses <br /> will occur during the technology and design process. Mr. Gregg clarified that he mentioned a deeper depth <br /> to be used for drip irrigation as a leaching facility, not for the purpose of fertilizing the grass. The Chair <br /> stated that DEP would not allow installation less than 6 inches deep unless the water is being highly treated. <br /> New Seabury does not wish to have golf course management disrupted so the course should be used as a <br /> means of discharge and not fertilization- Mr. Gregg recommended that support facilities will also be needed, <br /> such as tanks and pump systems located in various areas depending upon plans to distribute the flow. For <br /> planning and modeling purposes, Mr. Gregg recommended use of conservative estimates and identifying <br /> locations for support facilities. Mr. Malarkey questioned Mr. Lombardo's suggestion that New Seabury <br /> would not be needed for discharge and Mr. Lombardo responded that New Seabury is an asset with capacity <br /> and his plan utilizes New Seabury as a safety valve. The Chair stated that New Seabury is the only location <br /> in Mashpee that does not flow into a bay and offers the best location for discharge. Mr. Lombardo agreed <br /> and recommended that the entire flow should not be directed to New Seabury and the Chair responded that it <br /> would not have sufficient capacity for the entire flow. Mr. Lombardo stated that the high school offers a <br /> potential capacity of 600,000 but the Chair responded that the location is in the Quashnet watershed with <br /> little capacity for nitrogen. Mr. Gregg noted that capacity is available in some watersheds but not necessarily <br /> a lot of capacity. Mr. Lombardo suggested that capacity is available, and TMDL can be achieved, and that it <br /> would be costly not to consider the Quashnet watershed. The Chair responded that discharge would require <br /> greater treatment compared to other watersheds. The Chair added that there is an existing facility at the high <br /> school with space to possibly double the size of the discharge area without disturbing the ball fields. <br /> 5 <br />