Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> This second table outlines where/how each part of the project planning area is proposed to be served in the <br /> future under this option, and where the treated effluent from that area would be recharged in order to meet <br /> the TMDLs. In Option 1 B the future flows are more dispersed with eastern Mashpee (around Willowbend) <br /> receiving the largest portion of the flow,with other large recharges at Sites 4,6, and the Back Road parcels. <br /> Again some of the smaller VWVfF's would remain with a higher treatment level. This Option also assumes <br /> that all of Sandwich's flow remains within the project planning area, and Barnstable's flows are treated within <br /> the planning area as well. This Option does consider that the portion of Falmouth west of the <br /> Moonakis/Quashnet River is removed from the project planning area(similar to Option 1A). <br /> Figure 4 shows the location and discharge areas summarized on Table 2. <br /> 3 Option 1C Description <br /> This option was developed after receiving comments from the Sewer Commission following the submittal of <br /> the October 3, 2011 Draft memorandum on Options 1A and 1B. This Option is similar to 1B as it looks at <br /> how wastewater might be managed if the Rock Landing and New Seabury discharge locations were not <br /> available; however,there was concern that 1A and 1B managed flow from the neighboring Towns differently, <br /> so 1 C was established to replicate how flows in Sandwich, Barnstable, and Falmouth are managed similar to <br /> Option 1A.The balance of flow would either be managed within the watersheds or remain as flow from septic <br /> systems. <br /> This third table outlines where/how each part of the project planning area is proposed to be served in the <br /> future under this option, and where the treated effluent from that area would be recharged in order to meet <br /> the TMDLs. In Option 1C the future flows are more dispersed with eastern Mashpee (around Willowbend) <br /> receiving the largest portion of the flow,with other large recharges at Sites 4,6, and the Back Road parcels. <br /> Again some of the smaller WWTF's would remain with a higher treatment level. This Option manages the <br /> neighboring Towns in the same manner as done in Option 1A. <br /> Figure 5 shows the location and discharge areas summarized on Table 3. <br /> 4 Preliminary Findings Leading to MEP Model Runs <br /> The results of this analysis were then entered into previously developed MEP "Rainbow Spreadsheets"that <br /> were modified/updated to show the recharges based on the tables summarized above and compared against <br /> the MassDEP issued TMDLs for nitrogen in the various watersheds.The preliminary results are shown in the <br /> attached Table 4. <br /> Because this is not the official model run by the MEP, the impact on the various watersheds is considered <br /> appro)amate and will need verification through the MEP model run,however the results show that distribution <br /> of the nitrogen loads should be within the allowable thresholds.This and the supporting data(GIS data set of <br /> the unified database)are being submitted to MEP in order for them to run each of the three Options in their <br /> model and have MEP issue another technical memorandum similar to those issued November 13,2009 and <br /> February 9,2010 summarizing the results. <br /> 6 <br />