Laserfiche WebLink
included a portion of Falmouth and Barnstable within the planning area, but did not include the Town of <br /> Sandwich.However, it was understood that the Town of Sandwich would be included in any alternative to be <br /> evaluated in the project. <br /> These layouts were then used to create two initial Options(Nos. 1 and 2)that were presented to the Sewer <br /> Commission in the Spring of 2011. Based on these two options for addressing nitrogen within the project <br /> planning area, the Sewer Commission offered several suggestions.These were considered and the options <br /> were transformed into Option 1A and Option 1 B,as described in subsequent sections. <br /> The general comments from the Sewer Commission relative to these initial two options helped form Options <br /> 1A and 1B,and were as follows: <br /> • Use of Rock Landing —consider one option of relocating the wells from that location and a second <br /> alternative where Rock Landing site was not available. <br /> • Maximize use of New Seabury Golf Course (under one scenario, the other should focus on it not <br /> being available). <br /> • Ma)am ize use of Willowbend Golf Course. <br /> • Sewer Popponesset Island under all options. <br /> • Possible pilot project within the Pirates Cove neighborhood using Nitrexrm technology-or permeable <br /> reactive barrier(PRB)technologies. <br /> • Look at options of Falmouth, Barnstable, and Sandwich dealing with their nitrogen loads outside of <br /> the watershed. In subsequent meetings, the Sewer Commission requested a second look at the <br /> portion of Falmouth east of the Quashnet/Moonakis River in Mashpee (as originally presented to the <br /> Committee). Based on this reconsideration,the eastern part of Falmouth was to be addressed within <br /> the watershed when developing the options. <br /> • Consider sensitivity analysis of improved attenuation south of Santuit Pond and Quashnet Bogs;and <br /> possibly through Willowbend. <br /> • Improve all small WWTF's to 3 mg/L. Initially, the approach by GHD was to only consider <br /> improvements to larger facilities as it would likely be more cost effective in the short term relative to <br /> the amount of nitrogen load discharged by these smaller facilities. <br /> • I/A systems for now will continue to be considered at 19 mg/L, with the understanding that it is <br /> possible to achieve higher performances if designed,installed,.and operated properly(which was the <br /> basis for initially considering 10 mg/L TN effluent for some of these facilities). It is presumed that the <br /> average 19 mg/L (as shown in recent reports prepared by Barnstable County) is a reasonable <br /> assumption for average use and remains consistent with the MassDEP approval process for these <br /> systems. <br /> Additional assumptions by GHD used in the analysis: <br /> • Sites being considered(outside of existing WWTF discharge sites)include: <br /> o Site 2(Ashumet)for treatment only <br /> 2 <br />