Mashpee Board of Sewer Commissioners
Meeting Minutes
October 18, 2011 at 7 p.m.
Mashpee Town Hall, Selectmen’s Meeting Room
Present: Chairman Tom Fudala, Mark Gurnee, Joe Lyons, Jack Malarkey
Absent: Oskar Klenert
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Fudala.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 30, 2011
Mr. Malarkey requested that minutes be provided within one week of the meeting. Mr. Gregg suggested changes to pages 2 and 3 of the minutes.
Mr. Lyons made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Gurnee seconded the motion. All voted unanimously.
Mr. Malarkey requested that the amended version of the minutes be emailed to the Commissioners.
AGENDA ITEMS
Status of GHD Tasks
-Regina Villa Associates Public Outreach Work-Jeff Gregg reported that there was no update.
-MEPA Notice of Project Change-There was no change.
Invoices
-GHD Invoice for $8,471 from SRF Loan-Chairman Fudala referenced the invoice received from GHD and the monthly progress report highlighting the work completed. The Chair indicated that the cost totaled $9,999.00 but that two separate invoices had been submitted.
Mr. Malarkey made a motion to pay GHD $8,471. Mr. Lyons seconded the motion. All voted unanimously.
The voucher was signed by the Commissioners.
-GHD Invoice for $1,528.50 from 9/13/11 Supplemental Contract-GHD has provided an additional invoice for the supplemental contract to complete the work for the USGS solute transport inputs. The total cost of the work was $1,528.50. The Chair has been in contact with USGS and they are happy with the work submitted by GHD.
Mr. Lyons made a motion to pay the $1,528.50 bill. Mr. Malarkey seconded the motion. All voted unanimously.
The voucher was signed by the Commissioners.
-Lombardo Invoice for $390-Pio Lombardo has submitted a bill in the amount of $390 representing 2 hours of attendance at the last meeting.
Mr. Lyons made a motion to pay the bill. Mr. Malarkey seconded the motion. All voted unanimously.
The voucher was signed by the Commissioners.
-SMaST Invoice for Draft Waquoit Bay MEP Report for $15,297-The Chair stated that Mashpee had not yet been in receipt of the report but that payment would not be processed until the report was received. The draft MEP report for the main body of Waquoit Bay had been authorized by Town Meeting as a separate account, with Mashpee responsible for ize="+0" color="#000000" style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:9pt;color:#000000;">Vote: 3 in favor, 1 against
The voucher was signed by 3 commissioners.
Presentation of GHD Proposals for Option 1A and Option 1B
Mr. Gregg submitted a report, labeled DRAFT Scenarios Description, to be considered by members of the Commission. Mr. Gregg summarized that Falmouth, Barnstable, Sandwich and Mashpee were presently in different phases of the planning process and that recommendations were based on identified areas in the two watersheds and the remainder of Mashpee, with focus on the wastewater flows and loads of the areas. Mr. Gregg stated that the goal was to identify the recharge areas in order to complete the modeling analysis which would develop the scenarios that will assist with identifying the costing, alternatives and technologies. Chairman Fudala stated that the two options would have no costs associated with them and Mr. Gregg agreed, adding that they were modeling approaches that would determine whether or not
the approaches would meet the TMDL, with the intent to move forward to build the scenarios. Mr. Gregg emphasized that the focus was on where the wastewater would be recharged and in which watershed. Treatment for the water and other issues would be refined during the planning and phasing stage. Mr. Gurnee inquired about the modeling and Mr. Gregg responded that MEP would be conducting the modeling. There was discussion about the use of rainbow spreadsheets that represented the loadings and review of watersheds and sub-watersheds. The Chair recommended a review of the reports located on the Sewer website.
Mr. Gregg stated that the general approach for Option 1A would include the following: focus on directing the flow to Rock Landing and New Seabury, recharge some flow from Barnstable, Falmouth and Sandwich outside of the watersheds, utilize existing treatment locations, add new treatment locations, expand some treatment facilities and maintain some existing I/As, such as the Nitrex system in Sconset Village. Mr. Gurnee inquired about the number of I/A systems in Mashpee and Chairman Fudala responded that there were over 300, more than any other town on Cape. The Chair noted that there were two additional subdivisions that were required to be 100% I/A to include Equestrian Way and Anthony’s Way. The Chair will forward the information to Mr. Gregg and recommended marking up a large map.
Mr. Gregg noted that there may be little change in concentration over a small flow, but since the I/A systems were in place they could be considered in future planning. Mr. Gregg noted that the primary discharge site would be Rock Landing, with potentially New Seabury, Back Road Site, Site 4/Transfer Station and the recharge of existing facilities.
Mr. Gregg discussed the content of the Option 1A table. Chairman Fudala inquired why four areas were lumped into one area. Mr. Gregg stated that Mashpee Commons had an existing treatment facility that was already treating to a high level. Mr. Gregg was attempting to determine the impact to the scenario runs when recharging at a certain value and at a certain concentration. Mr. Gregg noted that there would be a cost difference if a new facility was built to treat at 10 mg/L. The Chair expressed concern about the direction of some of the flows and Mr. Gregg responded that it was a balancing exercise. Mr. Gregg discussed specific details about building new facilities to treat the yellow area and other areas and the increased costs of building to treat to 10 mg/L. Mr. Gregg
stated that MEP would be seeking water and concentrations and that the goal was to get as much flow to Rock Landing as possible. The Chair recommended that there be greater consistency between the two tables and that each area be identified separately. Mr. Gregg stated that the table was intended to reflect which areas would be directed to which discharge site. Results from the model would allow movement of the service areas, as needed. The Chair also expressed concern that Falmouth East, which was being treated, was not reflected on the table, and requested that it be included.
In reference to the maps, Mr. Lyons recommended that roadways such as Great Neck North and South, Rt. 151and Rt. 28 be included to serve as reference points for Mashpee residents. Mr. Gregg agreed to make the change for the final report. Mr. Gurnee inquired about the way in which certain areas were identified as being treated outside the watershed and other areas being left on septic systems. Mr. Gregg responded that it was determined based on the nitrogen balance. Chairman Fudala inquired whether the Fair Share concept had been considered and Mr. Gregg responded that it was based on a general approach. Mr. Gurnee expressed concern that more properties remained on septic, suggesting that Barnstable would not be contributing 50% reduction. Mr. Gregg responded that he reviewed all flows
and loads and that this was a reasonable approach, adding that assumptions sometimes must be made in the absence of specific details. The Chair reiterated his preference that the tables reflect the fair share responsibility. Mr. Gurnee and Mr. Gregg discussed the split and Mr. Gregg emphasized the need to focus on what was being recharged to the watershed. There was also discussion about Sandwich and the need to balance. Chairman Fudala referenced one existing and one proposed treatment plant located in Sandwich that did not appear in the text or on the map, which would be located in the green/septic area. The Chair requested that Mr. Gregg acquire the information about the proposed plant to incorporate it into the proposal. The Chair also noted that there was an additional proposal for sewerage treatment in the Golden Triangle area of Sandwich. The Chair also inquired about the Forestdale School and Mr. Gregg responded that it was sent out
of the watershed. The Chair suggested that Mr. Gregg follow up with Dave Mason in Sandwich. Referencing fair share, and flow being sent out of the area, Mr. Gurnee inquired what would happen during the modeling. Mr. Gregg confirmed that modeling would provide results of whether or not targets would be met for the areas with a natural flow included, but the wastewater not included. Mr. Gurnee inquired about how to decide what would be sewered if such information as fair share was incorrect. Mr. Gregg responded that it would occur in the plan during the phasing process and would be adaptive over time. Mr. Gregg confirmed that the actions of neighboring towns would impact Mashpee but that Mashpee must focus on what they must do first. Mr. Gurnee inquired about a timing issue with the flow and whether areas should be addressed closer to the bays to demonstrate to the State the efforts to meet the TMDLs. Mr. Gregg responded that it would
be determined during phasing and based on the cost implications. Mr. Gregg added that the first stage of phasing would be dealing with the location of existing facilities and where Mashpee could get the biggest bang for their buck, which would be the areas closest to the embayments. Mr. Gregg also noted that adaptive management will be used since data received from monitoring may allow changes to the planning.
In discussing the Option 1A flows, Mr. Gregg highlighted the table depicting the estimated future average annual flow, peaking the value when recharging in various service areas to ensure that discharge capacities will be sufficient at the discharge sites. Mr. Gregg explained that the red area represented Rock Landing with open sand beds, but with active well sites requiring relocation, so it could meet the targets or the balance of the flow may need to be directed to New Seabury. Rock Landing may offer a maximum of 1.5 million gpd. The Chair added that the New Seabury driving range was nearby.
Regarding Option 1B, Mr. Gregg explained the biggest difference as not using New Seabury and Rock Landing but instead utilizing the Keeter property. Portions of Barnstable and Falmouth would be treated and discharged in Mashpee and Sandwich would remain within the Popponesset Bay watershed. Chairman Fudala suggested that factors, such as the neighboring towns, should remain the same in both options to better compare the options. Mr. Lyons suggested that Option 1B provided the worst case scenario. Mr. Gregg inquired whether the Commission wished to have a third option and Mr. Lyons recommended acquiring the information from the two options prior to requesting a third. The Chair stated that the two options could not be fairly compared as they currently existed and suggested that it might be
best to consider a third option. Mr. Gurnee agreed. Mr. Gregg suggested considering which option would be most realistic for the surrounding towns, basing the two scenarios on what was believed to occur in the other towns. Mr. Gregg agreed that it would be good to compare two scenarios based on using Rock Landing/New Seabury but inquired about the intent of the other towns, emphasizing the benefits of pursuing a regional approach for funding and implementation purposes. Chairman Fudala stated that the representation of Barnstable in Option 1A was the closest to what their committee was considering. Regarding Sandwich, Chairman Fudala stated that the 40B should be reflected since the flow would remain in the watershed and that the Golden Triangle project may remove flow from the watershed.
Robert Steen of Wright Pierce, working with Sandwich, stated that the needs assessment was expected to be completed by the end of the year. Mr. Steen clarified that the Interim Wastewater Solution was considering the South Sandwich Village Center and Industrial Park area, but that it may not be the ultimate plan for the town. Mr. Steen confirmed that there was a private developer who considered removing the flow from South Sandwich village out of the watershed. Mr. Steen also referenced Forestdale Village, noting that a final decision had not yet been reached by the developer about their plans but that he was working on acquiring a discharge permit. The Chair inquired about the Forestdale School treatment plant and Mr. Steen responded that it may or may not happen and that the committee was still
assessing the town’s needs. The Chair inquired whether Mr. Steen was aware of the Fair Share approach, adding that Mashpee must assume that Sandwich would meet their fair share. Mr. Steen responded that there were still issues that needed to be discussed with the Fair Share approach. The Chair inquired whether the 40B project would be moving forward and Mr. Steen responded that he had spoken to the developer who was interested in learning more about Sandwich’s planning. There was discussion about the developer’s need to offer a nitrogen offset.
Returning to discussion about Option 1B and its use of the Keeter property, the option would also keep Sandwich and Barnstable within the watershed, adding a cluster system at Santuit Pond and the Nitrex pilot project at Pirate’s Cove. The Keeter property would pick up the properties in yellow and the existing treatment facilities in New Seabury would recharge as it currently existed, Willowbend would be expanded, a new treatment facility at Site 2 would go to New Seabury, portions of Falmouth would go outside, the pink area would go to the Back Road site, Central Mashpee would go to Site 4, the Sandwich Golden Triangle would be recharged somewhere in Mashpee and the purple areas would go to Willowbend. Mr. Gregg further described the draft map identifying other areas that would be picked up and the
locations of where it would be discharged.
The Option 1B flows would feature Willowbend as the controlling factor in terms of dealing with maximum flows that could total 1 million gpd. Drip irrigation could total 850,000 gpd. Chairman Fudala noted that Willowbend and the Transfer Station Site were closely related, adding that some flow would be treated at Willowbend and some would be discharged at the Transfer Station Site, adding that the Transfer Station Site may have excess capacity. Mr. Gregg clarified that the site had hydraulic capacity but possibly not nitrogen capacity, and that the ultimate goal was to focus on moving flow to the watersheds offering the highest capacity. The Chair inquired about the average numbers and whether the Transfer Station was included, and Mr. Gregg responded that he had not, explaining the nitrogen issue. Mr. Gregg discussed the various technology options, such as sub-surface leaching, which could better address some of the issues. Chairman Fudala added that more disruptive
technology may prevent Mashpee from reaching a cooperative agreement with facility owners. Mr. Gregg stated that the modeling was based on the average annual but the Chair expressed concern about the ability to handle a max month condition. Mr. Gregg stated that the Town would need to be prepared to distribute the max month to another location. There was discussion about moving the flow to another location and the expense of treating and transporting it.
Mr. Gregg referenced the table created by MEP reflecting the previous scenarios by build out, threshold and percent change. The table reflected estimated values to determine how they compared to the threshold values. Mr. Gregg inputted his septic loads and wastewater loads into the tables, reviewing the estimated values in kg. per day for the various watersheds to estimate the totals in the watersheds. Mr. Gregg stated that Option 1B would be tighter than Option 1A due to Sandwich and Barnstable flows. Mr. Gregg’s work was intended to determine whether or not the Options made sense in order to send the information to MEP for the model run. Chairman Fudala stated that each of the options met or exceeded the total reduction by total watershed, but expressed concern that not enough had
been done for Mashpee River. Mr. Gregg responded that there were many issues in the watershed associated with not meeting the threshold, which was why it needed to run through the modeling, adding that some sub-watersheds did not meet the threshold. Mr. Gurnee inquired about the reasons why Mr. Gregg felt that Option 1B was worse than Option 1A and Mr. Gregg responded that it was because Sandwich flow remained within the Popponesset Bay watershed and that Barnstable would remain in the watershed. There was discussion about the Keeter property and the need for more information about the site through the USGS solute transport and MEP modeling.
Mr. Gregg summarized the next steps as reviewing comments from the Commission, meeting with MEP, running the model and building the scenarios. Mr. Lyons inquired about creating Option C to develop a clean comparison. Chairman Fudala recommended having Option 1B leave Barnstable/Sandwich as in Option 1A and have Option 1C be like Option 1B. Mr. Gregg disagreed and Chairman Fudala then summarized that Option 1C would not have Rock Landing/New Seabury and that Barnstable and Sandwich flows would go outside of the watershed. The comparison would then be between C and A regarding New Seabury and Rock Landing and B and C would compare towns in versus towns out.
Mr. Lyons inquired about Option 1B which indicated that there was no margin in error between the Jehu/Hamblin Pond total in the preliminary estimates and Mr. Gregg responded that it may have been influenced by the Keeter Property. The Chair added that the watershed had always been the toughest one to address. There was discussion about the direction of the flow and the significant changes based on the amount of the flow. The Chair recommended moving the discharge further east since Jehu Pond was difficult to address and Mr. Gregg responded that the flow needed to go beneath Ockway Bay or else it would have a detrimental effect on Ockway Bay. Mr. Gregg emphasized the importance of utilizing MEP in order to get the information about habitat impacts, such as eelgrass.
Mr. Lyons inquired about whether Mashpee was better served by discharging further south. Chairman Fudala responded that 50% attenuation could be achieved by going north through the ponds. There was discussion about the level of treatment needed and consideration of watersheds with higher capacity or higher attenuation.
Chairman Fudala requested that the three options be compiled and updated in the report to be considered at the next meeting. The Chair also recommended that Mr. Gregg speak with Mr. Mason of Sandwich and the MEP people. Mr. Gregg noted that he would follow up regarding the Sandwich 40B and the Forestdale School. Mr. Gregg will also incorporate the I/A subdivisions of Anthony’s Way and Equestrian Drive.
Mr. Lyons suggested that the Commission had reached a turning point and that the modeled options could provide an opportunity leading to a presentation to the Town. Mr. Lyons recommended that it be identified as the 2011 Modeling in order to differentiate it from the prior 5 scenarios. Chairman Fudala confirmed that the previous scenarios provided information about mandated technologies and costs and that the 2011 modeling would provide information about identifying the best discharge sites.
Mr. Gregg inquired about the Johns Pond open space. Chairman Fudala reported that the shoreline of Johns Pond was part of Southport and that there were three or four parcels, one of which was town owned and the others which were privately owned but without roadway access. The Chair stated that there was an approved portion north of Southport of the Quashnet Valley Country Club featuring 63 approved subdivision lots. The remaining area was conservation land. Mr. Gregg suggested that it would be nice to go north to the Back Road Site but the Chair responded that it would require crossing the Quashnet and that he was unsure about the legal constraints of running a pipe up Payamps Road. Chairman Fudala inquired about which of the Back Road Sites would be utilized and Mr. Gregg responded that it
was the middle parcel. The Chair indicated that the site had the worst topography, adding that Site #1 could be an ideal location for the treatment site. Mr. Gregg emphasized the need to maintain the flow in the Johns Pond watershed rather than Moody Pond, since the attenuation was more favorable.
Intermunicipal Issues
Mike Domenica forwarded an email regarding meetings with Barnstable and that he was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Mr. Domenica was focusing on the Popponesset watershed with Barnstable and Sandwich.
Falmouth- No report
Barnstable- No report
Sandwich-Discussed previously
Discussion Items
-Status of Water/Sewer District-The Chair reported that Town Counsel had proposed a document to the Water District. Mr. Malarkey inquired whether the Commission could pursue the matter further. Chairman Fudala stated that the issue was between the Board of Selectmen and the Water District Commission. Mr. Malarkey referenced the special meeting among the Water District, Board of Selectmen and the Sewer Commission where support was expressed to combine the Commissions. The Chair noted that the Water District was a separate entity but indicated that he could contact Andy Marks, Water District Operations Manager, to inquire further. The Chair stated that the Water District was in receipt of Sewer Commission agendas.
-Status of Vacancies-Vacancies remain on the Commission. Town Meeting passed the Article regarding Commission membership. Mr. Malarkey inquired about the candidate, Bill Johnson, who had expressed interest in the Commission three months ago. Chairman Fudala stated that amendments to the general bylaw required approval from the Attorney General. Mr. Gurnee and Mr. Lyons recommended that the individual be invited to attend the meetings without the ability to vote. The Chair noted that the Board of Selectmen would be the appointing authority.
Mr. Lyons made a motion to invite William Johnson to join the Commission on a participation basis with the understanding that until the Commission receives official notification that he would not be allowed to vote.
Mr. Malarkey indicated that members of the Sewer Commission did not have an opportunity to meet the candidate and recommended that the Commission do so. The Chair stated that the Commission could not appoint members. Mr. Lyons suggested that the Commission could make a recommendation but the Chair responded that it was not necessarily the case and that he would be welcome to attend a meeting. Mr. Malarkey recommended getting together to meet the candidate but the Chair indicated that a quorum was 4 members and that the Open Meeting Law did not allow for a quorum to meet outside a public meeting. Chairman Fudala announced the vacancies and recommended that interested parties apply to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Lyons recommended that the BOS be contacted regarding the vacancies.
-Status of Sewer Commission Administrator Hiring-The Chair requested input from the Commissioners regarding their preferred candidates for interviewing of the seven candidates. Chairman Fudala will make a recommendation to the Town Manager regarding the Commissioners’ feedback, with the expectation that the hiring process would be completed prior to the next meeting.
-Status of USGS Solute Transport Modeling-The Chair spoke with Don Walter who was working on the modeling as a top priority. The draft report was expected in December. New information was available, but that the modeling would continue to utilize the MEP watersheds.
New Developments/Existing Developments Requiring Wastewater Treatment Plants
-Mashpee Village-Pursuing their own treatment plant and discharge permit although open to cooperation with adjacent properties. Assisted Living on adjacent land may be possibility (see below). Mr. Gregg reported that he assumed that the treated flow would have been collected and treated at 3mg/L and sent to Back Road site.
-Summerwood – no news.
-Mashpee Woods 40B – foreclosed and owned by CC Coop Bank – Industrial subdivision is DRI at CCC with no proposed treatment plant.
-Stratford Ponds – Completed treatment plant improvements to blowers etc.
-Wampanoag Village 40B project by Wampanoag Tribe – 40K gpd (RBC) treatment plant under construction in advance of 40B approval due to federal funding conditions. Will be required to tie in neighboring properties to meet DEP “zero net nitrogen” rule, possibly including Town Hall area. DEP will only enforce “no net” after 9900 gpd exceeded.
-Cotuit Meadows 40B (in Barnstable) – Construction done on WWTP, to tie in nursing home and possibly Shellback Place in Mashpee to meet DEP “zero net nitrogen” policy.
-Potential new 40B/mixed use on Haney property between 151 and Old Barnstable Rd. Will need treatment plant. No recent communication from potential developer.
-Concept of possible assisted living facility at the corner of Route 151 and Old Barnstable Road has been revived, necessitating wastewater treatment and potential coordination with adjacent properties.
OTHER ITEMS
Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next meeting had been scheduled for November 15, the third Tuesday of the month. There was discussion about changing the meeting night. There were some conflicts due to other scheduled meetings. Chairman Fudala will check with Town Clerk regarding the possibility of meeting on a Thursday.
Lombardo Associates
Pio Lombardo distributed maps to the Commissioners highlighting suggested locations for Nitrex PRBs. Mr. Lombardo indicated that one map detailed a master list of locations and the other map highlighted the most cost competitive options with a depth of less than 25 feet. Mr. Lombardo explained that the yellow area indicated the prospective areas for PRBs. Mr. Lombardo recommended that the information to be provided to Mr. Walter at USGS to consider the nitrogen removal quantification that could occur from using the systems in the modeling, which could provide additional information to the Commission that could assist in reducing costs. Mr. Gurnee inquired about the removal of additional nitrogen after 50% was removed. Mr. Lombardo recommended superimposing the information on Mr. Gregg’s
proposed sewer areas map, emphasizing that use of the PRB could meet the TMDL at a lower cost. Mr. Gregg’s map could be utilized to determine the most practical locations to use the PRBs. Mr. Walters could then model it mass-wise to provide an economic comparison. Chairman Fudala stated that Mr. Walters would be developing a model along with a visual of nitrogen concentrations, the report of which will be available in December. The Chair was unsure whether or not additional modeling could be requested since it was a government project. There was discussion regarding the depth of the systems and the cost effectiveness of focusing on areas that were less than 25 feet. The Chair inquired about use of well fences, pumping and treating ground water and Mr. Lombardo stated that he would not dismiss it but that it could be a cost issue.
CORRESPONDENCE
MEETING ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Lyons. Mr. Malarkey seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer M. Clifford
Board Secretary
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
-Jeff Gregg, DRAFT Scenarios Description
-GHD Monthly Progress Report
-10/16/11 Mike Domenica Email
-Pio Lombardo-Town of Mashpee Popponesset Bay and Waquoit Bay Watersheds, Nitrex PRB Locations
-Pio Lombardo-Town of Mashpee Popponesset Bay and Waquoit Bay Watersheds, Nitrex PRB Locations with Depth <25 Feet
| 
