Laserfiche WebLink
Following the October 2011 presentation on Options 1A and 1 B,some additional minor changes were made <br /> to these scenarios to address questions raised regarding meetings TMDL's within subwatersheds and <br /> requests to examine some individual properties.These included the following: <br /> • Barn-39 was included under each scenario (1A, 1B and 1C)to address higher loads to Shoestring <br /> Bay.This flow was considered removed from the watershed under each scenario. <br /> • Additional flow removed from Jehu Pond under each scenario (1A, 1B, and 1C) to reduce loads in <br /> this watershed (approx. 1,600 gpd treated at either Rock Landing or Keeter Property depending on <br /> Option). <br /> • Added Anthony's Way and Equestrian into the I/A Group <br /> • Identified a double accounting of build-out wastewater flow within the Mashpee River Watershed.As <br /> part of the estimation of nitrogen impacts, GHD modified the MEP "Rainbow Spreadsheets" to <br /> estimate the nitrogen load and attenuation to the watersheds. MEP had estimated build-out load <br /> which included wastewater and non-wastewater sources. To evaluate the Options, the MEP build- <br /> out load was modified to eliminate wastewater flows(as they are being accounted for as part of the <br /> GHD analysis), however within the Mashpee River watershed, not all the wastewater nitrogen was <br /> removed during the GHD analysis from the MEP model initially. This has been corrected as part of <br /> this data analysis. <br /> • T. Fudala of the Sewer Commission identified a change in a future 40B project,and flows for Parcel <br /> 19-10 were reduced to eliminate 120 apartments, however the projected remaining build-out as <br /> previously identified by the Town is to remain. <br /> Option Description <br /> 1 Option 1A Description <br /> This option was a modification to the first of two presented in the Spring of 2011.The primary goal was to <br /> look at sending as much flow as possible to the existing Rock Landing Well site, under the assumption that <br /> these wells would be relocated in the future to allow treated water recharge to occur at this site.The balance <br /> of flow would either be managed within the watersheds or remain as flow from septic systems. <br /> The first table outlines where/how each part of the project planning area is proposed to be served in the <br /> future and where the treated effluent from that area would be recharged in order to meet the TMDLs. In <br /> Option 1A the majority of the treated flow is proposed to be sent to the Rock Landing Well site,which would <br /> require the relocation of those water supply wells, the majority of the smaller WWTF would remain although <br /> treated at a higher level, and portions of Sandwich, Falmouth, and Barnstable would be treated out of the <br /> watershed. <br /> Figure 3 shows the location and discharge areas summarized on the Table 1. <br /> 2 Option 113 Description <br /> This option was developed after receiving comments from the Sewer Commission on Option 1A.The primary <br /> goal was to look at how wastewater might be managed if the Rock Landing and New Seabury discharge <br /> locations were not available.The balance of flow would either be managed within the watersheds or remain <br /> as flow from septic systems. <br /> 5 <br />