EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Without Figures) rev - Town of Falmouth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN/ 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 

LITTLE POND, GREAT POND, GREEN POND, BOURNES POND, 

EEL POND, AND WAQUOIT BAY WATERSHEDS 

ES.1 BACKGROUND 

The Town of Falmouth (Town) is completing this Draft Comprehensive Wastewater 

Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DCWMP/DEIR) and Notice of 

Project Change (NPC) Document to provide a comprehensive strategy for wastewater 

management for the Little Pond, Great Pond, Green Pond, Bournes Pond, Eel Pond, and Waquoit 

Bay watersheds. These watersheds comprise the Planning Area for the Comprehensive 

Wastewater Management Planning (CWMP) Project. Figure ES-1 illustrates the location of the 

Town of Falmouth on Cape Cod and the Planning Area in the eastern half of the Town and 

extending into the towns of Mashpee and Sandwich. The plan is for a 20-year period (year 2015 

to 2035) with a 40-year perspective (extending to year 2055) on the ultimate buildout for the 

Town and the need of the Towns of Falmouth, Mashpee, and Sandwich to meet Nitrogen Total 

Maximum Daily Loadings (TMDLs) for these watershed areas. The starting year (2015) of this 

Planning Period is estimated as the first year of operation of newly constructed wastewater 

facilities for this area. 

This DCWMP/DEIR documents the many evaluations and reports that were completed for this 

project. It also documents the recommended plan for the wastewater management system, as 

well as non-wastewater management recommendations. It provides an environmental impact 

analysis that demonstrates the significant environmental benefits of this Project. This 

DCWMP/DEIR is the proposed plan to remediate the water quality and marine habitat of the salt 

ponds and bays in the Planning Area that have been impacted by excessive nitrogen loadings 

from the watersheds, predominantly from existing septic system discharges. 

This plan will need to be implemented through adaptive management to provide the most 

effective nitrogen mitigation and the most cost-effective implementation. This means that the 

plan is developed in a flexible format to allow changes in the implementation as new 

Town of Falmouth, MA ES-1 

Draft Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan and 

Draft Environmental Impact Report 

7104510.6

technologies prove their feasibility, performance testing demonstrates the true performance of 

the installed facilities, environmental monitoring indicates improvement in the marine water 

quality, and as new regulations/laws/building codes are passed to allow new approaches. 

There are components of this plan which need further coordination and agreement. The most 

significant needed component is an agreement with the Massachusetts Military Reservation 

(MMR) to allow Falmouth to construct a new Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) on their 

property near the existing Otis Air Force Base (AFB) WWTF and the Regional Solid Waste 

Management Facility. An agreement to site a new WWTF to serve the Planning Area, and 

possibly the neighboring Towns of Mashpee, Sandwich, and Bourne, as well as the MMR itself, 

is not yet complete. Significant progress has been made toward an agreement over the past year, 

but additional discussions, negotiations, and agreement are needed. Discussions are also needed 

with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on the proposed 

treatment, recharge and water-reuse system, and the adaptive management approach proposed as 

part of the plan. 

This document is prepared for review by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

(MassDEP) and as part of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and Cape Cod 

Commission (CCC) Development of Regional Impact (DRI) joint review process. A Notice of 

Project Change (NPC) is also included in this document because detailed evaluations have been 

completed (and reported in this document) that were not originally scoped in the CWMP 

Environmental Notification Form (ENF) and ENF approval certificate. 

ES.2 SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER PROBLEMS AND NEEDS IN THE 

PLANNING AREA 

The identification and understanding of the wastewater related problems in the Planning Area 

has been a long process. 

The first recommendation of sewer extensions to portions of the Planning Area date back to May 

1981 in the Wastewater Facilities Plan by CDM and the Environmental Impact Report by 

USEPA. That plan recommended sewering the densely developed Maravista Peninsula located 

between Little and Great Ponds, as well as the Falmouth Heights area located west of Little 

Pond. That sewer extension was planned to be the second phase of the larger wastewater project 




7104510.6

that constructed the original Blacksmith Shop Road WWTF, connected the Woods Hole sewer 

system to the Blacksmith Shop Road facility, eliminated the Woods Hole ocean outfall, and 

provided sewer extension to Main Street, Inner Harbor, and Falmouth Beach areas of Falmouth 

Center. The second phase of that project was never completed due to problems with the original 

Blacksmith Shop Road WWTF. 

The second recommendation of sewer extensions to portions of the Planning Area dates to 

January 2001 in the Wastewater Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Report by Stearns & 

Wheler. That plan identified that excessive nitrogen loadings to the watersheds of Little Pond 

and Great Pond were impacting water quality to the two salt ponds and that sewer extension was 

the best solution. That plan indicated that the nitrogen limits for the two ponds were needed 

before sewer extension planning could proceed further. That plan also recommended an upgrade 

and expansion of the Blacksmith Shop Road WWTF (completed in 2005), sewer connection to 

the Falmouth High School (completed in 2007 - 2008), sewer extension to the North Davis 

Straits Planning Area (Falmouth Mall and surrounding area), sewer extension to the Scranton 

Avenue Area, and sewer extension to the West Falmouth Harbor area. These last three sewer 

extensions have not yet been completed and it is noted that the North Davis Straits area is within 

the Planning Area for the current project. This DCWMP/DEIR includes the implementation 

timeline of these three previously approved sewer extensions coordinated with the 

implementation timeline of the wastewater facilities for the Planning Area. 

The third recommendation of sewer extensions for portions of the Planning Area dates to March 

2001 with the completion of the Ashumet Plume Nitrogen Offset Program Detailed Analysis of 

Feasible Corrective Actions by the team of Horsley & Witten, Inc.; UMass School of Marine 

Science and Technology (SMAST); and Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. This 

recommendation did not proceed (in part) due to the need for Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) limits for the salt ponds. 

The nitrogen TMDLs developed by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) and promulgated 

by the Environmental Protection Agency since 2001 documented the following problems in the 

salt ponds of the Planning Area: 

High concentration of nitrogen in the marine water that has led to excessive algae 

production and eutrophic conditions. 




7104510.6

Loss of water clarity from the suspended algae which has led to loss of rooted eel grass 

on the floor of the estuaries. 

Deposition of algae in the estuaries which has further damaged eel grass beds, smothered 

shellfish resources, and depleted dissolved oxygen concentrations in the estuary and 

severely impacted the benthic communities on the estuarine floor. 

These TMDLs identified threshold nitrogen concentrations for these salt ponds and calculated 

the amount of existing wastewater nitrogen that would need to be removed to meet the threshold 

concentrations. The percentages of existing wastewater nitrogen loading (from existing septic 

systems) that needs to be removed to meet the nitrogen TMDLs is illustrated on Figure ES-2. 

This figure also illustrates the existing areas of Town served by sewers and the three potential 

wastewater treatment plant sites evaluated as part of this project. It is noted that the TMDLs 

have been completed for all coastal ponds in the Planning Area except for the western portion of 

Waquoit Bay (“Waquoit West”). TMDL completion for Waquoit West is expected in 2010 or 

2011. In an effort to proceed with the wastewater planning for the total Planning Area, Stearns 

& Wheler used the existing wastewater nitrogen removal percentages from the adjacent Bournes 

Pond watershed as a planning assumption of the removals needed for Waquoit West. 

The wastewater removals shown on Figure ES-2 are for the “existing conditions” in the 

approximate time period of 2003 to 2004 as documented by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project. 

Additional land use growth has occurred and is expected in this area, and when the ultimate 

buildout is projected for this area, the needed wastewater nitrogen removals are even greater. 

Figure ES-3 illustrates the percentage of future wastewater nitrogen loadings that need to be 

removed to meet the nitrogen limits. These are very stringent limits that can only be met by 

sewering the majority of the Planning Area, advanced wastewater treatment, and careful recharge 

in selected locations of the Planning Area that can accommodate the return flow and remaining 

nitrogen estimated at 1 to 3 mg/L total nitrogen. This figure also illustrates planned and 

proposed sewer areas Town-wide. The green area is the portion of the Planning Area (Phase 1 

and 2 areas) proposed for sewering in the first 20 year period. 

The large scale wastewater collection treatment and recharge project required to meet these 

TMDLs presents a significant challenge to the Town and will be a large expense to the Town and 

its residents. In meeting this challenge and implementing this project the Town will be executing 




7104510.6

the Wastewater and Nutrient Management Vision articulated by the Selectmen: “By 

comprehensively and effectively managing its wastewater and other nutrient sources, Falmouth 

will improve water quality, protect public health and enhance the town’s economic vitality. 

Falmouth will offer its residents, visitors and future generations healthy waters in order to sustain 

the town’s property values and vibrant economy.” 

The Town’s wastewater management needs were summarized in the October 2007 Needs 

Assessment Report, which is available at the Town’s Wastewater Projects website 

(www.falmouthwastewaterprojects.org), the Town Wastewater Department web page at 

www.falmouthmass.us, as well as in the Town’s 5 libraries. 

ES.3 SUMMARY OF IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE 

SOLUTIONS TO MEET THESE WASTEWATER NEEDS 

Many alternative solutions were identified, researched, and screened (eliminated or retained for 

more evaluation and cost development) in the Alternatives Screening Analysis Report, 

November 2009, which is also available at the Town’s wastewater projects website 

(www.falmouthwastewaterprojects.org), the Town Wastewater Department web page at 

www.falmouthmass.us, as well as in the Town’s 5 libraries. The following list summarizes 

many of the alternative solutions researched: 

1. Centralized municipal wastewater treatment facilities and sites, including: 

a. Small package (community) treatment facilities incorporating biological 

nitrogen removal (BNR) with designed average performance of approximately 

6 mg/L total nitrogen. 

b. Centralized treatment technologies incorporating enhanced nitrogen removal 

(ENR) with designed average performance of approximately 3 mg/L total nitrogen. 

c. Technologies to achieve less than 3 mg/L total nitrogen on average. 

d. Technologies to remove endocrine disruptors and the “emerging contaminants” 

of personal-care products and pharmaceuticals. 




7104510.6

e. Treatment alternatives for phosphorus. 

f. Disinfection alternatives. 

g. Residuals management. 

h. Treatment plant sites and treated-water recharge sites. 

i. Treated-water recharge technologies: 

sand infiltration beds 

subsurface infiltration 

spray irrigation 

well injection 

wick well technology 

drip irrigation 

j. Ocean outfall disposal. 

k. Collection system technologies: 

gravity sewers, lift stations, and force mains 

low pressure sewers with grinder pumps 

septic tank effluent sewers (pressure and gravity) 

combination of technologies 

2. Decentralized wastewater treatment systems: 

a. Individual on-site wastewater treatment and disposal technologies, including: 1 

1 MassDEP approval status is referenced to the 2007 date of the Alternatives Screening Analysis Report. 




7104510.6

1) Systems with MassDEP approval for general use, but not credited for 

nitrogen removal: 

Title 5 septic systems 

JET aerobic systems 

Orenco intermittent sand filter 

2) Non-discharge and/or reduced-discharge systems: 

Tight tanks 

Waterless Toilets (Composting/Incinerating) 

Urine source separating toilets 

3) Systems approved for general use in nitrogen-sensitive areas: 

Recirculating sand filters 

RUCK ® system 

4) Systems approved for provisional use in nitrogen-sensitive areas: 

Bioclere systems 

FAST systems 

Waterloo Biofilter systems 

Amphidrome systems 

AdvanTex systems 

NITREX ® systems 

5) Systems approved for pilot use in nitrogen-sensitive areas: 

SeptiTech systems 




7104510.6

Norweco Singulair systems 

RUCK ® CFT 

Cromaglass WWT systems 

NITREX ® -Plus 

Bio Barrier Membrane Bio-Reactor 

Omni recirculating sand filter system 

3. Flow and loading reduction alternatives: 

Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) reduction 2 

Reduction of household water consumption. 

Pricing policy for water and wastewater service. 

Wastewater reuse and recycling. 

Reduction of wastewater loadings. 

Waterless toilets. 

Growth management regulation. 

4. Additional non-wastewater nitrogen mitigation alternatives: 

Reduction of nitrogen from fertilizers and pet wastes. 

Watershed modifications and constructed wetlands for nitrogen attenuation. 

Stormwater management and treatment. 

Pond inlet modifications to provide improved tidal flushing. 

Modified zoning or sewer use regulation. 

Nitrate barrier wall considerations. 

2 

This is for the existing wastewater collection system outside of the Planning Area pertaining mainly to the older 

Woods Hole collection system. 




7104510.6

These alternatives were evaluated for feasibility, effectiveness, and other criteria, and from all of 

these potential solutions, the following ones were identified to be evaluated in detail: 

1. Sewer extension to the Planning Area to collect the current and future septic system 

nitrogen loadings that are causing the problems. 

2. Advanced treatment (Enhanced Nitrogen Removal or ENR) with Sequencing Batch 

Reactor (SBR) technology followed by polishing filters (Treatment Scenario “A”) at one of 

the following alternative treatment sites: 

Existing Blacksmith Shop Road WWTF site (Alternative 1A) 

Falmouth Country Club site (Alternative 2A) 

MMR/Otis WWTF site (Alternative 3A) 

3. Possible additional treatment to further reduce nitrogen and treat for the emerging 

contaminants of endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. 

4. Treated water recharge at the Falmouth Country Club site. 

5. Improved lawn fertilizer management practices. 

6. Improved stormwater management. 

7. Pond inlet widening at selected ponds to increase tidal flushing, thereby potentially 

reducing the amount of upper watershed nitrogen removal required. 

8. Possible watershed modifications (freshwater wetland and pond improvements and/or 

restorations) to increase the amount of nitrogen that is naturally attenuated in the 

watershed. 

The main findings of the Needs Assessment Report and the Alternatives Screening Analysis 

Report, as well as the alternatives selected for detailed evaluation, were summarized in the 

December 2007 Environmental Notification Form (ENF) document and submitted to initiate the 




7104510.6

environmental review of this project. The ENF review included a public hearing and site visit 

(bus tour of the Planning Area and the potential wastewater facility sites). Final comments were 

received and are attached in an appendix in this DCWMP/DEIR. 

ES.4 SUMMARY OF DETAILED EVALUATIONS TO REMEDIATE THE 

WASTEWATER PROBLEMS 

A. Initial Alternatives Evaluation. The alternatives selected for detailed evaluation (as 

discussed above) were evaluated in detail with cost development and the following findings are 

noted: 

1. The costs for the three alternatives were similar (within 8 percent of one another) due 

to the large wastewater collection component (sewers and pump stations) that is common to 

all. The costs for these alternatives are summarized later in this Executive Summary 

section. 

2. The MMR/Otis AFB WWTF site was the best site for the following reasons: 

It has the most space for a modern expandable treatment facility. 

It is located in the Planning Area. 

It does not have any abutting residential neighborhoods; therefore, “Not in my 

Back Yard” (NIMBY) opposition to this site would be the least of the three sites. 

It lends itself to becoming a regional facility also serving the towns of Mashpee, 

Sandwich, and Bourne as well as the MMR; and is consistent with Cape Cod 

Commission efforts to encourage regionalization where feasible. 

3. The Falmouth Country Club site has good infiltration capacity and could recharge a 

large flow of treated water; however, even with nitrogen removal to 3 mg/L and sewering 

up to 100% of the watersheds, the return of a large volume of treated water to the 

watersheds for recharge means that not all of the TMDLs can be met with infiltration at the 

Falmouth Country Club site as evaluated. These alternatives involving ENR treatment and 

recharge at the Falmouth Country Club site (Alternatives 1A, 2A and 3A) would meet the 




7104510.6

TMDLs for Little, Great, and Green Ponds. However, these alternatives would not meet 

the TMDL for Bournes Pond or the estimated TMDL for Waquoit West, even with 100% 

sewering of those watersheds, and even with a Bournes Pond inlet widening. 

4. Infiltration at the Falmouth Country Club site would require a large portion of 

forested area to be cleared to construct the infiltration facilities, and less intrusive recharge 

technologies are desired. 

5. The vast majority of each watershed (100% of some watersheds) needs to be sewered 

and the wastewater needs to be treated to levels below 3 mg/L total nitrogen and the treated 

wastewater needs to be recharged fairly evenly across the Planning Area in order to meet 

TMDLs for all ponds in the planning area. 

6. Given the level of treatment required to meet TMDLs, there was a desire to recharge 

the treated water in such a way that it could be reused to recharge ponds, streams, wetlands, 

and drinking water supplies. 

7. Improved lawn fertilizer management should build on the successful work of the 

Falmouth Friendly Lawns Program and be promoted and managed by Barnstable County 

because these problems are common to all Cape towns. 

8. The Town has an ongoing stormwater management program managed by the Town’s 

Engineering Division. This program needs expanded funding to address the many 

stormwater mitigation needs. 

9. The openings to Little Pond and Bournes Pond could be enlarged to provide 

improved tidal flushing and to reduce wastewater nitrogen removal requirements. 

Additional evaluation is needed to evaluate environmental impacts and overall feasibility. 

10. Watershed modifications are recommended for the Coonamessett River, and the 

Coonamessett River Restoration Committee moved forward with the recommendation. 

B. Additional Evaluations for Water Reuse and Well Recharge in the Planning Area. 

Additional wastewater management evaluations were completed to increase the treatment level 




7104510.6

and distribute the treated water over a greater area so that all the nitrogen TMDLs can be met, to 

reduce the area of environmental impact for recharge, and to allow reuse for recharge of ponds, 

streams, wetlands, and drinking water supplies. The following two treatment technologies were 

evaluated to meet Massachusetts’ highest standards for treated water reuse and recharge into 

Zone II areas: 

Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) followed by granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption 

treatment (Treatment Scenario B). 

MBRs followed by reverse osmosis (RO) water purification and carbon adsorption 

treatment (Treatment Scenario C). 

In addition to achieving lower total nitrogen concentrations, these process combinations would 

be designed to remove endocrine disruptors, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals in the 

water. Trace amounts of these components are now being detected in wastewaters and water 

supplies due to their increased use and the development of more precise analytical methods. 

These components are called “emerging contaminants” because they are being detected at low 

levels but no threshold limits for human or environmental health have yet been developed. 

MassDEP recently (early 2009) developed a total organic carbon (TOC) limit of 3 mg/L for 

recharges into a Zone II area with groundwater flow times of greater than two years. The TOC 

parameter is a surrogate for the many emerging contaminants that may be in the water; and 

MassDEP research has indicated that treated water with TOC values less than 3 mg/L also have 

very low (or non-detectable) levels of the emerging contaminants. MassDEP also developed a 

TOC limit of 1 mg/L for recharges into a Zone II area with groundwater flow times of greater 

than 2 years that do not have the benefit of treatment in the unsaturated soil zone (i.e, for direct 

recharge to the groundwater system). MassDEP does allow some modifications to these limits 

for specific circumstances after discussions/negotiations with MassDEP. 

This evaluation also included infiltration of the treated water to the groundwater system through 

a series of recharge wells located in the Route 151 right-of-way. The recharge wells require little 

land disturbance, but must have highly purified water to avoid “soil plugging” at the well screen 

and subsequent reduction of infiltration capacity. Treatment Scenario C can produce a treated 

water suitable for well recharge as demonstrated at existing municipal installations. Treatment 

Scenario B is a lower cost treatment technology that is believed to be suitable for well recharge. 




7104510.6

Additional performance testing of this treatment combination (Treatment Scenario B) would be 

required during implementation to prove its long-term ability to be compatible with well 

recharge. If the performance is not satisfactory, then reverse osmosis would need to be added to 

the process (Treatment Scenario C). 

The evaluation of recharge wells was not originally scoped as part of the December 2007 

Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for this project due to concerns about regulatory 

acceptance. Evaluation of this recharge technology was added to the scope for a number of 

reasons including: 1) the desire to take advantage of the very high level of treatment required to 

meet the TMDLs to then provide water reuse within the planning area watersheds, i.e., recharge 

upgradient of surface water bodies and drinking water supplies, and 2) the desire to reduce the 

footprint (and therefore the environmental impact of construction) needed for recharge. The 

addition of these evaluations is discussed in the Notice of Project Change included in this 

document. 

The costs for these reuse and well recharge alternatives are summarized later in this Executive 

Summary section. 

C. Additional Evaluations to Investigate the Feasibility and Costs of Developing an 

Ocean Outfall. Previous wastewater planning efforts in the late 1970s and early 1980s 

evaluated the possible use of an ocean outfall from Nobska Point in Woods Hole extending 

approximately 2,000 feet into Vineyard Sound. Town Meeting decisions at that time did not 

approve it. Since then, the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act was passed which prohibits the 

discharge of any municipal treated water into this portion of Vineyard Sound (as well as all of 

the marine waters around Falmouth). The legislation is strictly imposed and a variance would 

require action by several State agencies. It is believed that a variance would only be given if it 

was shown that ocean disposal was the only feasible way to protect public health and the 

environment. Due to this law, preliminary evaluations for this disposal technology in the 

November 2007 Alternatives Screening Analysis Report for this project deemed that an ocean 

outfall would be infeasible. 

After issuance of the Alternatives Screening Analysis Report and the December 2007 

Environmental Notification Form, several community members requested the evaluation of this 




7104510.6

option in more detail due to the high cost of the previously described treatment and 

recharge/reuse scenarios and because it may provide reduced environmental impact. 

An ocean outfall treatment and discharge alternative (Scenario 1D) would have the following 

components: 

Wastewater collection from the Planning Area to meet the nitrogen TMDL as indicated in 

Figure ES-3. 

Conveyance to the existing Blacksmith Shop Road WWTF or MMR and treatment to the 

current standards (advanced nitrogen and solids removal) followed by filtration and 

disinfection. 

Potential discontinuance of the current groundwater recharge at the existing WWTF site 

and conveyance of the total flow (from existing sewered area and needed sewered area in 

the Planning Area) to an additional disinfection facility in Woods Hole. 

Final disinfection and discharge through the outfall. 

Costs for the ocean outfall discharge scenario at Woods Hole are summarized at the end of this 

section. 

Evaluation of the non-monetary factors indicates the following findings: 

An ocean outfall would entirely remove wastewater nitrogen (and other constituents) 

from the watersheds to the sensitive coastal ponds. By eliminating recharge of treated 

wastewater to the watersheds, the outfall option would reduce the amount of upper 

watershed sewering required to meet the TMDLs. 

An outfall at this location could have an environmental benefit because it would move the 

treated water (with its low nitrogen concentration of less than 3 mg/L total nitrogen) 

beyond the near-shore environment into a well mixed zone. It is noted that groundwater 

recharge of treated water eventually reaches the same off-shore environment; but in doing 

so, it moves through the near-shore environment where it causes eutrophication in the 

estuaries. 




7104510.6

An outfall at this location with water treated to ENR standards would most likely not 

have an adverse environmental impact on the marine environment, but additional 

scientific studies would be needed to address questions and concerns of the local, 

regional, state, and federal stakeholders that would need to approve it. 

The outfall would lower groundwater elevations of the Sagamore flow lens in certain 

areas of Town due to the relocation of the current water recharges (at the existing WWTF 

and at existing septic systems) to the outfall discharge. This effect would need to be 

evaluated in detail using a groundwater model for the whole Sagamore flow lens. 

These scientific studies would take at least 1 year to complete, and the public and 

regulatory decision process on a CWMP and a variance request for an ocean outfall in an 

ocean sanctuary could add five more years. 

Legal challenges could add additional delays. 

A detailed list of the scientific studies, regulatory permits, and approvals needed for this scenario 

to proceed is included in the body of this report. 

Although not evaluated for costs, a discharge to Cape Cod Canal with tertiary treatment at the 

MMR may also be a feasible alternative and should be considered in any future scoping 

processes. Previous environmental studies have shown that the Canal has a tremendous amount 

of mixing and dilution, and outfalls to the canal have been evaluated at least two times in the 

past. 

D. Summary of Costs for Wastewater Management Scenarios. The following Table ES-1 

summarizes current (July 2009 Benchmark) costs of the main wastewater management scenarios 

evaluated for the 20-year planning period of 2015 to 2035 to extend sewers to the Phase 1 and 2 

areas as illustrated on Figure ES-3. These costs are detailed in the main body of this report. 




7104510.6

TABLE ES-1 

SUMMARY OF COSTS (1) FOR ALTERNATIVE 

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS FOR 

20-YEAR PLANNING PERIOD FROM 2015 TO 2035 FOR 

SEWER EXTENSION AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FOR PHASE 1 AND 2 AREAS 

SCENARIO NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION 

1A Wastewater Collection, ENR (2) treatment at Blacksmith 

Shop Road (BSR (3) ) site, and recharge at Falmouth Country 

Club (FCC) site. 

2A Wastewater collection, ENR (2) treatment at FCC site, and 

recharge at FCC (4) site. 

3A Wastewater collection, ENR (2) treatment at MMR (5) site, 

and recharge at FCC (4) site. 

3B Wastewater collection, MBR (6) and GAC (7) treatment at the 

MMR site and well recharge at Route 151 ROW (8) (10) . 

3C Wastewater collection, MBR (6) and RO (9) and GAC (7) 

treatment at the MMR site and well recharge at Route 151 

ROW (8) (10) . 

1D Wastewater collection, ENR (2) treatment at BSR (3) site and 

ocean outfall disposal at Nobska Point. 

Notes: 

TOTAL 

CAPITAL 

COSTS (1) 

($ MILLION) 

ANNUAL O&M 

COSTS (1) 

($ MILLION) 

380 2.9 

350 2.9 

370 3.2 

400 5.3 

410 6.3 

410 2.9 

(1) All costs are in millions of dollars rounded to two significant digits with the following definitions: 

Costs are referred to July 2009; therefore, these costs will need to be scaled to account for inflation in the 

future. 

Total capital costs include estimated construction costs, 25 percent contingency allowance, and 25 percent 

allowance for fiscal, legal, and engineering costs of implementation. 

Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost includes annual costs for electricity, chemicals, solids 

disposal/reuse, operating labor, equipment repair and maintenance, and environmental monitoring. 

(2) Enhanced Nitrogen Removal (ENR). 

(3) 

Blacksmith Shop Road (BSR). 

(4) 

Falmouth Country Club (FCC). 

(5) 

Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). 

(6) 

Membrane Bioreactor (MBR). 

(7) 

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC). 

(8) 

Right-of-Way (ROW). 

(9) 

Reverse Osmosis (RO). 

(10) 

Alternatives 3B and 3C are the Reuse Alternatives due to their use of advanced treatment that meets reuse 

requirements. 

Town of Falmouth, MA 



7104510.6 

ES-16

The next table (Table ES-2) summarizes costs to meet the nitrogen TMDLs in the 40-year period 

of 2015 to 2055 with projected wastewater infrastructure. These costs are provided as a 

benchmark because adaptive management techniques and experience during the first 20 years 

(2015 to 2035) are expected to reduce the need for this full level of wastewater treatment and 

reuse. 

TABLE ES-2 

SUMMARY OF COSTS (1) FOR ALTERNATIVE 

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS FOR 

40-YEAR TIME PERIOD FROM 2015 TO 2055 FOR 

SEWER EXTENSION AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FOR PHASE 1, 2, AND 3 AREAS 

SCENARIO NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION 

1A Wastewater Collection, ENR (2) treatment at Blacksmith Shop 

Road (BSR (3) ) site, and recharge at Falmouth Country Club 

(FCC) site. 

2A Wastewater collection, ENR (2) treatment at FCC site, and 


3A Wastewater collection, ENR (2) treatment at MMR (5) site, and 


3B Wastewater collection, MBR (6) and GAC (7) treatment at the MMR 

site and well recharge at Route 151 ROW (8) (10) . 

3C Wastewater collection, MBR (6) and RO (9) and GAC (7) treatment at 

the MMR site and well recharge at Route 151 ROW (8) (10) . 

1D Wastewater collection, ENR (2) treatment at BSR (3) site and ocean 

outfall disposal at Nobska Point. 

TOTAL 

CAPITAL 

COSTS (1) 

($ MILLION) 

ANNUAL 

O&M 

COSTS (1) 

($ MILLION) 

NA (10) NA (10) 

NA (11) NA (11) 

NA (11) NA (11) 

600 7.6 

610 9.4 

590 4.4 

Notes: 

(1) through (10) are the same as listed on Table ES-1. 

(11) These costs are Not Applicable because this scenario cannot meet the TMDL in Bournes Pond and estimated 

TMDL in Waquoit-West surface waters. 




7104510.6

There has been much discussion of these scenarios and costs within the Town and the following 

bullets summarize the major points of that discussion: 

The costs of full implementation of alternatives to meet the TMDLs are very high, and 

the Town may not be able to afford to achieve 100% compliance with the TMDLs in a 40 

year time frame. 

There is still uncertainty regarding the nitrogen TMDLs and the ability of the MEP water 

quality model to accurately predict the desired estuarine concentrations and the return of 

acceptable marine habitat. 

The Town believes that the best way to begin the nitrogen mitigation for the Planning 

Area is to extend sewers to the Phase 1 and 2 areas (illustrated on Figure ES-3) over the 

20-year planning period and observe the effects with marine water quality monitoring. 

This step (sewering south of Route 28, advanced wastewater treatment, and distributed 

recharge) is a very substantial project that would dramatically reduce the nitrogen load to 

the ponds and would represent major progress towards achievement of the TMDLs. 

The best way to manage the collected wastewater is to treat it to a level where it can be 

reused and recharged to the aquifer with minimal human and environmental health risks, 

and with minimal disruption of the ground surface. 

The ocean outfall alternative (Scenario 1D) has substantially lower annual operational 

costs than the reuse alternatives (Scenarios 3B and 3C); however, ocean disposal has 

many regulatory approval uncertainties and likely delays associated with it, and reuse and 

recharge is the most environmentally acceptable alternative. 

Phased collection system construction, treatment level B and distributed well recharge, 

coupled with adaptive management over the 40 year implementation horizon is an 

approach that would meet the TMDLs. 

Because of the cost of the alternative scenarios listed above, and for a variety of other reasons, 

there has also been much recent discussion (much of it in the newspapers and through direct 

correspondence to Town Boards) regarding whether nitrogen management goals could be met 

with less expensive, innovative/alternative (I/A) decentralized technology solutions. However, 

one of the most basic findings of this Draft CWMP is that the water quality limits set by the state 




7104510.6

for the coastal ponds are so low that they can only be met by sewering the majority (nearly 

100%) of each of the watersheds, treating the wastewater to very low nitrogen levels (below 3 

mg/L total nitrogen, which can only be achieved by a centralized treatment facility), and 

distributing the treated water recharge across multiple watersheds. Decentralized (cluster or 

individual) I/A systems will not work for the following basic reasons: 

1. The Town must offer a Recommended Plan that ultimately is capable of meeting the 

TMDLs. None of the I/A technologies under discussion has been demonstrated to 

consistently produce nitrogen concentrations sufficiently low to meet the TMDLs 

(below 3 mg/L total nitrogen), especially for properties with seasonal land use patterns. 

This is a fatal flaw in the concept of an I/A solution. 

2. For a project of this scale, the Town must rely on technologies that have been proven 

and are accepted by the DEP for large-scale municipal application (many of the I/A 

technologies do not fit into this category). 

3. With regard to the “cluster system” concept, the issues associated with siting of 

numerous smaller scale municipal wastewater treatment facilities (120 WWTF at 

15,000 gallons per day flow each, or 18 WWTF at 100,000 gallons per day each, or 

even 5 WWTF at 360,000 gallons per day each, for example) within existing densely 

developed neighborhoods are virtually insurmountable. The “cluster” concept is 

appropriate for isolated smaller areas that require sewering, surrounded by less densely 

developed areas that do not. However, the cluster concept does not make sense for an 

area like Falmouth’s southcoast peninsulas, on which there is relatively dense and 

relatively uniform development, all of which must be sewered (for a total estimated 

flow of 1.8 million gallons of wastewater) in order to meet the TMDLs. 

4. The concept of a “mix” or “checkerboard” of types of treatment technologies across the 

service area or allowing properties to “opt out” of a centralized system would only 

make the centralized system more expensive per unit, while decreasing the overall 

nitrogen removal effectiveness required as discussed in reason #1. 




7104510.6

5. Centralized treatment allows the Town significantly greater flexibility to respond to 

revisions in regulatory limits over time, (for example, new removal requirements for 

pharmaceuticals, or lower limits for phosphorous, organic carbon, or nitrogen). 

6. It has been demonstrated that individual I/A system performance is negatively impacted 

by seasonal flow variations. A centralized wastewater treatment system will perform 

more consistently over the year, and is more likely to achieve its maximum removal 

efficiency than individual systems, because of the more consistent influent flow. 

7. Operation and maintenance is more efficient and likely to be more consistent and 

successful at a centralized treatment system, and performance monitoring is 

dramatically simpler for a centralized system than for thousands of individual systems. 

Two wastewater technologies that were “screened out” in the November 2007 Screening 

Analysis Report in particular have received much attention recently. These two technologies and 

the reasons why they were screened out are discussed below. 

It has been suggested that the Urine Source Separation Technology (also called Urine Division or 

UD technology) would be a lower cost way to manage wastewater. The technology (described in 

the Alternatives Screening Analysis Report, starting on Page 7-11) would require the installation 

of special urine separation toilets and/or urinals in every home, hotel, and business in the 

Planning Area, so that the urine could be separated from the fecal waste. The fecal waste would 

flow to a septic system; the solids would have to be pumped periodically from the septic tank 

and the septic tank effluent would be discharged to the groundwater, as currently practiced in the 

Planning Area. The urine would flow to a holding tank in the basement of the house or in a 

separate underground tank for storage. Periodically, a tank truck (like a septage hauling truck) 

would pump out the urine and transport it to a disposal or reuse facility. The disposal facility 

would most likely be the existing Blacksmith Shop Road WWTF. If a fertilizer factory or other 

reuse facility existed nearby or was constructed by the Town, the urine could be processed to 

become a commercial fertilizer; however, no such facility currently exists in the United States 

and the U.S. market for such fertilizer is unproven. 

There is limited application of this technology in a few European countries and only isolated 

household application of it in the United States. This technology is projected to remove 50 to 




7104510.6

80 percent of the septic tank nitrogen discharge to the groundwater if the toilets are used as 

designed, (100 percent of the urine is diverted), and if the urine and solids removed from the 

systems are disposed of outside the planning area watershed. Unless a facility were constructed 

to produce fertilizer from the urine, this technology would use trucks instead of pipes to convey 

more concentrated waste to a local wastewater treatment facility for treatment and discharge. 

Advantages and disadvantages of this concept are listed in the Alternatives Survey Analysis 

Report based on research of the European experience. Available sources of information were 

researched including an article by the Stockholm Environment Institute (available at 

www.ecosanres.org/publications.htm), and the USEPA Nutrient Control Design Manual (excerpt 

attached in an appendix of this report). 

One of the most even-handed and comprehensive journal articles researched is the March 2007 

report of a transdisciplinary project of Eawag, which is a Swiss-based aquatic research institute 

focused on ecological, economical, and socially responsible management of water. This report is 

available at www.novaquatis.eawag.ch/index_EN and in an appendix of this report. After 

providing much analysis of this technology, it concludes in a section on “Acceptance” that large 

scale implementation cannot be recommended. 

Due to Falmouth’s unique seasonal land use in the Planning Area, Falmouth’s need to move 

forward with a feasible municipal solution, and current estimates of only 50 to 80 percent 

nitrogen removal (when there is complete proper usage of the system), the Urine Separation 

Technology was not recommended for detailed evaluations. 

The patented Nitrex® system is being promoted for individual septic systems and 

cluster/decentralized wastewater treatment plants. The system is relatively new and there is no 

long-term operating data. The technology is one of several technologies approved by MassDEP 

for provisional use, which allows installation of up to 50 units while its performance is being 

monitored. (The Alternatives Screening Analysis Report description of these technologies starts 

on Page 7-13 and the specific information on the Nitrex® system is on page 7-22). The limited 

performance data is generally good; and if the various pretreatment processes (on which the 

Nitrex® system depend) perform well, average nitrogen removal could be approximately 85 to 

90 percent (an average effluent concentration of 4 to 5 mg/l total nitrogen). This performance, 

even though it is good for individual septic systems and for a cluster/decentralized WWTF, is not 

good enough to meet the TMDLs for the watersheds in the Planning Area. 




7104510.6

As with any treatment system applied to many individual properties, if the technology was 

applied at every property in the planning area, there would be significant monitoring and 

operational requirements and significant uncertainty of its true performance (daily composite 

monitoring of these systems would be impractical). If the technology did not perform well, or if 

additional pollutants needed to be removed in the future (phosphorus, pharmaceuticals, organic 

carbon, or more nitrogen), there would be a great expense to modify the systems or replace them 

with a conventional sewer. Also, these systems do not perform well at houses with seasonal use 

because they rely on a biological process that must be maintained year-round. They would not 

perform well if they were “started up” in June as summer residents or renters occupy their houses 

for just a few months in the year. 

Due to this drawback, proponents of this technology propose creating cluster/decentralized 

WWTF in the planning area. If these systems were sized at flows of 15,000 gallons per day, 

approximately 120 WWTF would need to be sited, operated, and maintained to handle the 

projected 1.8 million gallons per day wastewater flow from the southern portion of the Planning 

Area (the peninsulas south of Route 28). Most people do not want to have a WWTF in their 

neighborhood, especially in such a densely developed area, and the success of siting this many 

WWTF is very unlikely. Scaling up the flow to allow one WWTF for each peninsula (at 360,000 

gallons per day each) would require siting a large WWTF in the vicinity of each of these densely 

developed peninsulas, which would be extraordinarily difficult. Also, operation and maintenance 

of this number of WWTF would be illogical and expensive for the Town Wastewater 

Department. These are the reasons why the Nitrex® system and other I/A systems were not 

recommended for more detailed evaluation. 

ES.5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PLAN 

The recommended plan is a comprehensive strategy for wastewater and nitrogen management for 

a 20-year period with a 40-year perspective on the ultimate build-out for the Town and the need 

to meet the nitrogen TMDLs in cooperation with the neighboring towns that share these 

watersheds. The 20-year period is 2015 to 2035, which is the estimated time period for 

implementation of sewer extensions to the Phase 1 and 2 Areas (south of Route 28). The nonwastewater 

nitrogen management solutions are also recommended for implementation during 




7104510.6

this 20-year period with the goal of hastening the return of improved water quality and 

minimizing the additional sewering needed beyond the Phase 1 and 2 Areas. 

Approximately half way through the 20-year period (approximately 2025), adaptive management 

evaluations will be reviewed; it is anticipated that a second CWMP would be initiated to review 

the strategies to meet the nitrogen TMDLs in the next 20-year period of 2035 to 2055. 

The recommended plan (Alternative Scenario 3B) allows for reuse of the treated water and 

includes the major components discussed below: 

1. Phased Construction of a New WWTF at the MMR Otis AFB Site. This 

component includes construction of a modern, expandable WWTF to meet the reuse-water 

quality standards of 3 mg/L total nitrogen (TN) and 3 mg/L total organic carbon (TOC). This 

WWTF would include the following technologies and strategies: 

a. WWTF headworks for wastewater pretreatment (screenings and grit removal). 

b. Membrane bioreactor (MBR) in a Bardenpho configuration with the following 

process components: 

anaerobic zone for biological phosphorus removal 

pre-anoxic zone for first stage biological nitrogen removal 

aerobic zone for nitrification and organic carbon removal 

post-anoxic zone for second stage biological nitrogen removal (to less than 

3 mg/L) 

membrane separation tank with re-aeration 

c. Granular activated carbon (GAC) contactors to adsorb remaining soluble 

organic carbon components to meet the reuse standard of 3 mg/L TOC or less. 

d. Disinfection 




7104510.6

This construction project would utilize a modular approach to allow expansion to proceed in 

multiple phases and with the flexibility to add equipment, such as membrane modules, as needed 

to meet flow requirements. 

The proposed wastewater treatment plant site layout is illustrated in Figure ES-4. 

The WWTF will be sized to treat approximately 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual 

average with a maximum month average of 3.3 mgd in the design year of 2035. 

Space will be reserved for additional treatment process expansion to accommodate wastewater 

flows from the Phase 3 Area (area north of the Phase 1 and 2 areas in Falmouth needed to meet 

the nitrogen TMDLs) and possible flows from Mashpee, Sandwich, Bourne, and increased land 

use at the MMR resulting from redevelopment of that State facility. Also, space will be reserved 

in case reverse osmosis technology needs to be added to the facility based on performance 

testing. 

2. Phased Construction of the Wastewater Collection System. The wastewater 

collection system for the Phase 1 and 2 areas has been planned to allow a collection system for 

each major peninsular area (Areas A through F as illustrated on Figure ES-5). 

It is envisioned that the collection system would be implemented from the west and proceed to 

the east. Phase 1 implementation includes Sewer Service Areas A and B as illustrated on Figure 

ES-5 and is planned for 2015 to 2025. (Portions of Sewer Area B that are outside of the Little 

Pond watershed may not be implemented until after 2025 because areas outside coastal pond 

watersheds do not contribute nitrogen load to a coastal pond and are therefore not the highest 

nitrogen management priority.) Phase 2 implementation includes Sewer Service Areas C, D, E, 

and F as illustrated on Figure ES-5 and is planned for 2025 to 2035. The West Falmouth Planned 

Sewer Extension Area and Scranton Avenue Planned Sewer Area illustrated in Figure ES-5 will 

also be implemented during Phase 1 implementation. 

3. Phased Construction of Treated Water Recharge Facilities. These facilities 

include the following components and backup contingencies: 




7104510.6

a. Pump station at the MMR WWTF site with water conditioning after disinfection 

processes. 

b. Treated-water force main to the recharge/reuse locations. 

c. A series of recharge wells located along Route 151 in the Town-owned right-ofway 

(ROW). Each well location would have an underground valve vault and small 

(approximately 6' x 6') building for the local control panel and operation and 

maintenance storage. 

d. Sand infiltration beds for conventional treated water infiltration as a backup 

infiltration facility and as needed when the WWTF is being started up. The existing 

sand infiltration beds currently used by the Otis AFB WWTF are envisioned for this 

use (pending approval by the MMR). If an MMR infiltration site is ultimately not 

available, new infiltration beds could be constructed at the Falmouth County club site 

to provide backup recharge capacity. 

Treated water recharge wells along the Route 151 corridor will allow the water to be recharged 

across the Planning Area (from which the wastewater originated) and to allow flexible water 

resource management in the future. This method of treated water recharge is used by the Air 

Force at the MMR facility and it has proven to be feasible and cost effective. 

These facilities are illustrated on Figure ES-6. 

Discussions are needed with MassDEP on the implementation of this type of recharge system 

with the treated water expected from the proposed new WWTF. As described earlier (Section 

ES.4.B), MassDEP recently (early 2009) developed a 1 mg/L TOC limit for treated waters 

recharged to the saturated zone because the water does not have the benefit of treatment in the 

unsaturated zone. The regulations allow some modifications to the limits for special 

circumstances. The Town plans to enter into discussions with MassDEP regarding this issue 

during the review of this DEIR due to the special circumstances of this large scale surface-water 

and groundwater remediation project. 




7104510.6

4. Non-Wastewater Management Components. 

a. Stormwater Management. After septic system discharges, stormwater (water 

flowing off of impervious surfaces) is estimated to be the second largest source of 

nitrogen to the estuaries. The best way to manage this water is direct it to vegetated 

and wetland areas where the nitrogen can be biologically utilized and/or converted to 

nitrogen gas before the water reaches the estuaries. There is much public information 

on this general type of best management practice, and the public, local boards and 

review agencies should continue to implement these practices as part of normal 

maintenance, repair, and new construction activities. The Town roads maintenance 

group and engineering division have an ongoing program to implement these best 

management practices. In recent years, funding for these projects has been cut. 

Funding for this program needs to be increased to remediate current direct stormwater 

discharges to the estuaries, as well as upgrade and maintain all road drainage 

recharges to the groundwater system. 

b. Fertilizer Management. The Town of Falmouth, with the assistance of the 

Falmouth Associations Concerned with Estuaries and Salt Ponds (FACES) and the 

Falmouth Ashumet Plume Committee, has been a leader in developing public 

outreach and education materials for proper fertilizer management. It is suggested 

that the Town utilize this work and support county/regional efforts of fertilizer 

management through the County Department of Health and the Environment and/or 

County Cooperative Extension, to extend this effort county-wide. It is widely 

recognized that this type of educational program needs to be applied county-wide 

because the need extends across Town borders. Communications with Andrew 

Gottlieb of the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative, George Heufelder of the 

Health and Environment Department, and William Clark of the County Cooperative 

Extension regarding the establishment of a county-wide fertilizer management 

program are ongoing. 

c. Pond Inlet Widening to Improve Tidal Flushing. Evaluations indicate that 

widening the inlets to Little Pond and Bournes Pond can increase tidal flushing, and 

thereby reduce the amount of wastewater nitrogen removal (sewering) needed in the 

watershed. (It is noted that the MEP concluded that inlet widening would not 




7104510.6

improve tidal flushing or improve water quality for any of the other estuaries in the 

Planning Area.) These techniques can also result in a more immediate water-quality 

improvement than sewering. However, they require additional water quality 

modeling and impact evaluation to determine that properties bordering these ponds 

will not be adversely impacted by increased tidal ranges. These studies are relatively 

inexpensive and should proceed as part of an adaptive management approach to 

improve water quality in the short term and reduce the total future sewered area. 

d. Watershed Modifications for Increased Nitrogen Attenuation. Evaluations 

indicate that modifications to watershed components and wetlands, such as 

abandoned cranberry bogs, can naturally remove nitrogen before the groundwater 

reaches the estuaries. Several meetings with the Coonamessett River Restoration 

Committee have been used to integrate these nitrogen management goals into the 

broader goals of the committee. Recommendations have been discussed for this 

watershed and are proceeding as allowed by funding opportunities. Also, discussions 

with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) indicate that they are incorporating these goals into 

their work with active cranberry bogs in Falmouth. 

ES.6 ESTIMATED COSTS AND FINANCING PLANS 

The Town’s DPW staff and Town Manager have conducted preliminary evaluations of 

mechanisms for financing implementation of the Recommended Plan. Preliminary alternative 

scenarios were presented to the Board of Selectmen in FY 09 to outline the financial options and 

to develop a multi-year capital plan. These discussions are continuing based on the costs and 

phasing presented for the Recommended Plan. 

The Town plans to utilize the State’s SRF (State Revolving Fund) to gain low interest loans to 

implement these facilities. The program typically provides 2 percent loans and will provide a 

limited number of 0 percent loans (as allowed by the 2009 Environmental Bond Act) to 

municipalities that meet specific criteria. The Town plans to apply for a 0 percent loan and has 

taken the necessary steps to be eligible for the funds. 




7104510.6

This recommended plan is a large capital investment in the Town’s infrastructure and will be 

carefully implemented to initiate the nitrogen mitigation to meet the nitrogen TMDLs while 

minimizing costs and impacts. Phase 1 and 2 will be implemented in the 20-year planning 

period of this plan (2015 to 2035). Phase 3 nitrogen mitigation will be implemented in the 

20 years that follow, 2035 to 2055. 

The estimated costs for the recommended Phase 1 and 2 wastewater facilities are summarized 

below: 

PHASE 1 AND 2 COST SUMMARY FOR THE RECOMMENDED WASTEWATER FACILITIES 

COMPONENT 

Construction 

Collection System (2) 

WWTF 

Recharge Facility 

Total Construction 

Contingency 

Fiscal Legal and Engineering 

CAPITAL COST (1) 

($ MILLIONS) 

210 

51 

8 

270 

67 

67 

Total Wastewater Capital Costs 400 

Notes: 

(1) 

All costs are rounded to two significant digits and are referenced to a benchmark date of July 2009. 

(2) 

The costs do not include the cost of house connections from the house to the sewer in the road right-of-way. 

These costs have been observed to range from $2,000 to $5,000 for the recent sewer connections at the New Silver 

Beach project. 

The average cost per household for both annual user charges and capital costs has not been 

determined yet due to ongoing capital improvement planning (CIP) and ongoing discussions 

regarding the percentage of the project that will be carried by the Town’s general fund (property 

taxes) and the percentage that will be carried by property betterments. For the New 

Silver Beach Wastewater Project for example, the Town utilized a 30% / 70% sharing of capital 

costs between the Town property tax rate (30%) and betterment charges (70%) for properties 

being sewered. 




7104510.6

If the Town decides to assess betterments it will need to develop a methodology for cost 

allocation among residential, commercial and industrial properties in the sewer service area (i.e. 

establishment of an equivalent sewer unit based, for example, on flow). 

The estimated cost for a house to connect to the sewer in the road right-of-way would depend 

upon distance from home to street, existing plumbing and septic layout and other factors; in the 

New Silver Beach area, sewer connection costs have generally ranged from $2,000 to $5,000. 

The costs to meet the nitrogen TMDLs in the Phase 3 time period of 2035 to 2055 will depend 

on the success of the Phase 1 and 2 implementation, as well as the implementation of nonwastewater 

nitrogen management recommendations. If the TMDLs need to be met solely with 

sewering, advanced treatment, and treated water recharge along Route 151, then the following 

additional costs for the Phase 3 implementation are indicated. 

PHASE 3 ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES 

COMPONENT 

Construction 

Collection System 

WWTF 

Recharge Facility 

Total Construction 

Contingency 

Fiscal Legal and Engineering 

CAPITAL COST (1) 

($ MILLIONS) 

110 

16 

2 

130 

33 

33 

Total Costs 200 

Notes: 

(1) These costs are in addition to the Phase 1 and 2 costs and are referenced to a benchmark date of July 2009. 

Capital costs have also been estimated for the non-wastewater recommendations that would 

proceed as part of an adaptive management strategy. These costs are summarized below: 




7104510.6

PHASE 1 AND 2 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR NON-WASTEWATER RECOMMENDATIONS 

COMPONENT 

Stormwater Improvements 

Coastal Drainage Operating Budget 

NPDES Operating Budget 

Fertilizer Management 

Pond Inlet Widening 

Modelling and Environmental Impact Evaluation for 

Conceptual Design 

Potential Costs for New Culverts and Bridge 

CAPITAL COST 

($ MILLIONS) 

3 (1) 

1.5 (2) 

N/A (3) 

0.025 

Total $12 

Notes: 

(1) 

Based on $150,000/year appropriation for 20 years for the Coastal Drainage operating budget. 

(2) 

Based on $75,000/year appropriation for 20 years for the NPDES operating budget. 

(3) 

It is assumed that fertilizer management will be implemented at the County level. 

ES.7 CWMP PROJECT COMPLETION AND IMPLEMENTATION TIMING 

The completion of the CWMP will require agreement between the Town of Falmouth and the 

MMR to site the new WWTF at the proposed location. These discussions are proceeding. 

Pending successful discussions with the MMR, the following CWMP completion milestones are 

indicated: 

December 21, 2009 to February 19, 2010: MEPA Review of Draft CWMP/DEIR 

(This time period provides for a 2 week review extension). 

April 2010 to June 2010: MEPA review of Final CWMP/DEIR 

June 2010 to September 2010: Cape Cod Commission Review 

August 16, 2010: SRF submittal of low interest loan application 

With the successful application and listing on the SRF Intended Use Plan, the following 

implementation steps are indicated for Phase 1 and 2 Areas as illustrated on Figure ES-6. 




7104510.6 

7

1. Phase 1 Implementation. 

2011 to 2025: Implementation of MMR WWTF and recharge system, and 

implementation of the collection system for: 

- Area A 

- West Falmouth Harbor Area 

- Scranton Avenue Area 

- Area B 

2. Phase 2 Implementation. 

2025 to 2035: Implementation of expansion of the WWTF and recharge facilities, and 

expansion of the collection system to: 

- Area C 

- Area D 

- Area E 

- Area F 

This Phase 1 and Phase 2 schedule is designed to have the new WWTF operational in 2015, and 

all sewer areas connected by 2035. Portions of the collection system could be accelerated as 

Town funding allows. 

Area A includes large commercial establishments that may want to connect more quickly. This 

area could be designed to connect to the existing collection system and then switched to a new 

WWTF at the MMR once that plant is operational. 

The Town should keep the implementation schedule as flexible as possible to take advantage of 

other projects (water main replacement, paving, private redevelopment, etc.) that may save 

construction costs and avoid duplicate construction impacts. 




7104510.6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Without Figures) rev - Town of Falmouth

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?