HomeMy WebLinkAbout11082013 Sewer Planning Work Group Agenda1
MEETING POSTING
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
Pursuant to MGL Chapter 30A, § 18-25
All meeting notices and agenda must be filed and time stamped with the
Town Clerk’s Office and posted at least 48 hours prior to the meeting
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays)
Committee/Board/s SEWER PLANNING WORK GROUP
Day, Date, and Time Friday, November 8, 2013 AT 10:00 AM
Location / Address 2 Fairgrounds Road (PLUS) Training Room
Signature of Chair or
Authorized Person
ERIKA MOONEY
AGENDA
1. Call to order.
2. Review minutes from past meetings.
3. Check list for additions to Sewer Districts.
4. Review/Discuss memo from Helen Gordon.
5. Date and topics for next meeting.
And any other business that can legally come before the Committee.
Contact Phone: Nancy Wheatley at 617-417-9377 or Kara Buzanoski, DPW Director
508-228-7244
1
MEETING POSTING
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
Pursuant to MGL Chapter 30A, § 18-25
All meeting notices and agenda must be filed and time stamped with the
Town Clerk’s Office and posted at least 48 hours prior to the meeting
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays)
Committee/Board/s SEWER PLANNING WORK GROUP
Day, Date, and Time Friday, November 8, 2013 AT 10:00 AM
Location / Address 2 Fairgrounds Road (PLUS) Training Room
Signature of Chair or
Authorized Person
ERIKA MOONEY
AGENDA
1. Call to order.
2. Review minutes from past meetings.
3. Check list for additions to Sewer Districts.
4. Review/Discuss memo from Helen Gordon.
5. Date and topics for next meeting.
And any other business that can legally come before the Committee.
Contact Phone: Nancy Wheatley at 617-417-9377 or Kara Buzanoski, DPW Director
508-228-7244
980 Washington Street | Suite 325
Dedham, Massachusetts 02026
www.woodardcurran.com
T800.446.5518
T781.251.0200
F781.251.0847
MEMORANDUM
TO:Kara Buzanoski, Director, DPW
FROM:Rosemary Blacquier and Helen Gordon
DATE:October 28, 2013
RE:Responses to SPWGQuestions
Many of the questions posed by SPWG will be addressed in the CWMP Update. We are still in the middle of
conducting our study and many of the answers we are providing are based on the fact that this is DRAFT
information and subject to change. We have been providing the Town with a Monthly Report on the progress of
the CWMP Update, Madaket Wastewater Treatment Facility and Infrastructure and the Surfside WWTF
upgrades. We have attachedthe mostrecent update to the end of this memo for your files.
CharlieStott:
1.What is the maximum number of new dwellings (including the potential for second dwellings) in current
and emerging needs areas that could be built under existing zoning by-laws?This is an on-going effort
for each area that will be detailed in the CWMP Update and Flows and Loads Calculations. This was a
joint effort with Andrew Vorce that included applying revised zoning and second dwelling estimates.
According to Andrew, historically the Town has added second dwellings on 12 percent of properties. In
order to be on the conservative side, we discussed with Andrew doubling the 12 percent to 25 percent.
Based on 2013 existing zoning by-laws and the discussions with the Town Planner on historical second
dwellings constructed, we applied a three/four-part formula using current Town Assessor data as
follows:
1.Does the land area meet current zoning?
2.If,no, no additional dwellings were added
3.If yes, a formula was applied to calculate land area and zoning to calculate the number of
seconddwellings that could be added
4.We took 25 percent of No. 3 above toestimateflows
Together with the revised zoning and a more detailed review of second dwellings reduced flows in all areas.
The comparison to flows in the 2004 CWMP showed a reduction, but the 2013 flows also more accurately
predict the second dwellings based on zoning and land area whereas the 2004 CWMP made an across the
board assumption that 2/3rdsof ALL properties would have a second dwelling.
2.What zoning changes are contemplated and how would those changesimpact the potential for build-out
in current and emerging needs areas?All CWMP Update work to date has been completed utilizing
existing, currentzoning. No assumptions havebeen made on anyfuture zoningchanges.
3.How do the answers to #1 and #2 affect flow?The zoning in many areas since the 2004 CWMP was
revised-most notably in Madaket. We worked with Andrew Vorce and Nate Porter to overlay the
revised zoning (Town-wide) over all work and new zoning reduced flows estimated in the 2004 Report
toour 2013 estimates. See full explanationon No. 1.
Page 2
4.How does the decline in the estimated number of second dwellings affect TMDLs and flow?Refer to
No. 1 above. Reducing the number of parcels and ultimately wastewater flows also reduces the
amount of nutrient loading into the water resources. This reduction in loading will be a positive impact
on any TMDL issued for the impacted embayment areas.
5.How do the unbilled connections affect TMDLs and previously projected flow?The unbilled connection
flows were originally included in the estuaries study and subsequent calculations in embayment areas
because the data used was supplied by the Town and as we have now discovered, the Town data was
incorrect. The unbilled connections were listed in Town information as being on septic and thus
contributing nutrients to the embayment. We are currently working to correct these scenarios with
SMAST to now show a more accurate loading based on existing conditions. One item to remember
with this is that the water quality testing done annually shows the actual conditions in the water
resource.
6.What is the cost of running a pipeline from Madaket to the Surfside plant or to the nearest sewer line
that can handle the flow?Now that we have determined that the Surfside Wastewater Treatment
Facility can support additional flow we have begun to conduct conceptual planning on this. This work is
currently in progress and includes infrastructure that may be needed to carry flow from Madaket to
Surfside. i.e. is there a need for a pump station(s), is existing infrastructure that would connect into new
pipe at the proper capacity, etc. This information will be provided when available and reviewed
internally.
7.Are there areas within current and emerging needs areas where it would be feasible to build multi-
family I-A systems?This is on-going work with the Board of Health as the local jurisdiction.This is
currently under review in a number of ways-is there sufficient land area available, are the soils suitable,
is the area within a protected watershed, is there a Massachusetts Estuaries Program completed and
subsequent TMDL issued that delineates areas of influence, etc. This is site and environmentally
specific.
8.If so, are there parcels of land that could be bought, leased or taken by eminent domain to build multi-
family I-A systems?This will be determined after No. 7 aboveis complete.
9.What costs would be involved in land acquisition and construction (including sewer lines) for multi-
family I-A systems?This cannot be estimated at this time as it is site specific. Once we determine if
there are areas which multi-familyI-A is an option we will prepare probableconceptual costs.
10.What parcels within current and emerging needs areas would not need to have functioning septic
systems replaced due to the direction of the groundwater flow or other factors?The approved scope of
Work for the CWMP Update islookingat the total Needs Areas and not a lot by lot analysis.
11.Can we get a readable summary of new technology that provides information on issues such as
capacity, cost, efficiency, benefits, drawbacks, conditions where the technology would be effective or
ineffective etc.?The best source is the Nantucket Board of Health where all records are maintained
Page 3
and the Health Agent has full knowledge of these systems on Island. The Massachusetts Department
ofEnvironmental Protection (MassDEP) also maintains a website with state-approved systems at
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/wastewater/summary-of-innovative-alternative-
technologies-approved.html. The Barnstable Department of Health also maintains a website with
recordsof I/A systems currently in useat http://www.barnstablecountyhealth.org/ia-systems
12.What technology or practices exist for managing phosphorus flow into ponds?It depends on the source
of the nutrient-wastewater, fertilizer, stormwater, etc. The major nutrient being evaluated in the CWMP
Update is nitrogen. Phosphorus is mainly a fresh water contaminant indicator. Additional information
onthis subject may be available through the Nantucket Land Council and/or theUMass Field Station.
13.What are the costs of these technologies or practices?They range depending on the type of issue and
ultimate solution. This can vary widely-for example if it is determined that stormwater is the contributor,
you can look at street sweeping (less expensive) or a structured Best Management Practice (BMP).
Which can be very costly. Again, one needs to identify the source and then proceed to the solution
which is what we are working on as part of this project.
14.What would be the impact on TMDLs of aggressive enforcement of the new fertilizer regulations?Strict
enforcement can reduce loading significantly in areas where science has determined it is a significant
source, such as in the Head of Nantucket Harbor. In other areas such as Madaket where fertilizer is
not one of the highest contributors, it will not have a significant impact. Every contribution at reducing
nutrient loading counts and strict enforcement of the Regulation Town-wide should be done as a piece
orpart of a solution.
.
15.What specific steps haveto be taken to get the beds at the Surfside plant rerated?
We negotiated a scope of work with MassDEP to complete this evaluation within the CWMP Update to
assess how the discharge beds are currently operating and assess any potential impacts of increasing
loading on the beds. Once this work is complete we will be meeting with MassDEP to discuss our
findings and negotiate acceptance of the re-rating. As we have stated publicly, the Surfside WWTF is
designed to handle all the identified Needs Areas-the limiting factor are the discharge beds, which have
a lowerpermitted limit than the WWTF.
16.Is the rerating of the beds a feasible alternative and is there any cost? If so, what is the estimated
cost?It is a feasible alternative that is being evaluated at this time under an approved Scope of Work
from MassDEP under its current Regulations. At this time, work is being done within existing budgets,
but should additional work outside of proposed scope be necessary, costs estimates will be developed
and reviewed bythe Town.
17.What steps would have to be taken to build an outflow pipe at the Surfside plant and what would be the
estimated construction costs?An ocean outfall is prohibited under the Massachusetts Oceans
Sanctuaries Act. Barnstable County has had several workshops on this subject with Nantucket’s Town
counsel as a presenter. It will take an appeal to the Legislature to change the current rulings, which will
take years and significant funds to do. This will be included in the CWMP Update as a future option to
follow. No costs are being developed on this as there is too many unknowns at this time to consider.
Please seethe attached white paper prepared by Nantucket Town Counsel on the topic.
Page 4
18.Would an outflow pipe in Madaket or other current or emerging needs areas be feasible and what costs
would be involved?See above response.
19.What would be the estimated cost of the Town purchasing equipment and hiring personnel to pump
septic tanks or tight tanks in current and emerging needs areas?This is a question for the Board of
Health.
20.How would the cost of pumping septic tanks or tight tanks in current and emerging needs areas be
affected if the work were to be contracted to the lowest responsible bidder?This is also a question for
the Board of Health.
21.Would there be any significant impact on TMDLs if septic tanks were to be regularly pumped out by the
Town?We are currently working on identifying this impact. The Chesapeake Bay has used this as a
way to reduce nutrient loads and receive credits towards reducing established TMDLs and we are
utilizing this as a basis for our assumptions and assessment. The Town has an approved Septage
Management Plan with a pumping program included, but the pumping portion has never been funded
and therefore not implemented. It will be a recommendation of the CWMP update to fund this task and
implement this Town-wide.
22.If the Town wereto pump out septic ortight tanks on private property, canthe Townlegally gain right of
entry? How?See response to 19 above
23.What storm water management practices or technologies are effective?There are many and they are
site specific. The CWMP Update is looking at some for use in areas where stormwater is documented
as a contributor. See response to No.13 for examples.
24.What is the estimated cost of such storm water management practices or technologies?See response
to13 above
25.What would be the estimated impact on flow if the Town were to require the installation of high
efficiency toiletsfor all new construction and renovationsof bathrooms?We are assuming this question
only relates to areas that are served bythe municipal wastewatersystem as it relates toreducing flows.
This would depend on the type of toilet. This could be included in a water conservation effort that could
include shower heads, energy efficient dishwashers, clothes washers, etc. MassDEP maintains a
website with all approved alternatives at :
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/wastewater/summary-of-innovative-alternative-
technologies-approved.html
The Town also has local plumbing codes that need to be adhered to with any of these options. The
Board of Health and/or Town Planning may have additional information on this that could help the
SPWG further understand theoptionshere.
Page 5
26.Can we estimate the impact on TMDLs in current and emerging needs areas if the Town were to
requiretheinstallation of I-A systems for allnew construction?No. I/Asystems will not workin all areas
due to a variety of reasons including densities and lot sizes. Madaket is one example where I/A
systems would not work on the small lots, high groundwater (would require mounds) and will not reduce
nutrient loadingto meet TMDL. The MEP completedfor Madaket Harbor/Long Pond details the needto
reduce wastewater entirely from the watershed in order to meet the TMDL. I/A systems do not reduce
nutrients tothislevel. This discussionwas included in the 2004 CWMP.
Nancy Wheatley:
27.Is there data on the number of homes used seasonally by neighborhood?This is a question for
Planning, TownAssessor or Town Clerk.
28.What technologies are available to improve the water quality in ponds, other than attempting to reduce
discharge of pollutants inthe future?Thereare many used and are site specific. What isthe size of the
pond, depths, land uses, etc. Cormac Collier and Jim Sutherland at the NLC may have additional data
onthis as they have worked with various technologies in Town, specificallyin Hummock Pond.
Woodard & Curran
Woodard & Curran (W&C) is looking to the SPWG for any information that it may have on overall
CapitalCost Recovery options available to the Townfor use with implementation ofthe CWMP Update.
This is important due to the limited availability of zero percent state Revolving Funds (SRF), which the
Town will qualify for under the 2008 Environmental Bond Bill (O’Leary Legislation). This funding is
slated to end in CY2019. The next opportunity to apply for SRF funds is in August 2014, which is for
CY2015 funds. In addition to funding potential future sewer extensions into Needs Areas will be items
such as stormwater improvements, upgrades to the Surfside WWTF and potential discharge beds,
which all qualifyfor this funding.
A Capital Cost Recovery Plan that has been developed and is accepted by the tax payers of Nantucket
is crucial to the overall success of this endeavor. While final cost estimates are not known at this time
for CWMP Update Final Recommendations, the Capital Cost Recovery Plan policy can be addressed
and vetted in parallel with theongoingCWMP Update work.
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1 – Monthly ProjectUpdate Memo
Page 7
Project Update: September 2013
Madaket Wastewater Treatment Facility & Collection System
Phase 1 - Preliminary Design Phase
Progress Last Month:
Begin Surfside infiltration bedloadingevaluation include sitevisit by hydrogeologist
Contract FAA site assessor tosupportTown onlandnegotiations
Start FAA appraisal process
This Month:
Meet with Town Appraisers and GSA Appraisers
Continue with Surfside Discharge BedReload Evaluation
Complete With Surfside WWTF Capacity Analysis
Schedule Projected completiondate – December 31, 2013
Town Action (s)Required:
Work with assessor on FAA site
225139 CWMPUpdate
Progress Last Month:
ReviewTSD unconnected properties
Draft Stormwater recommendations for Nantucket Harbor
Estimate to Complete based on outstandingitems
Initiate FAA Appraisal process
Filed Stormwater Master PlanCY2014 PEF
This Month:
Reviewof Hummock Pond MEP Draft – Modeling
Plan for Public Meeting to present results of Hummock Pond MEPDraft
Finalize Model Runs with SMAST
Reviewof Draft Stormwater Plan for NantucketHarbor MEP with DPW Director
Reviewof Draft Public Outreach Plan for Fall 2013 with DPW Director
Continue with Report Compilation
Schedule Projected completiondate – December 31, 2013
Page 8
225839 Surfside WWTF Assessment and Upgrades
Progress Last Month:
Corrosion Control – Began preparation of the recommendation and probable
estimated costsfor design and constructionover thenext 3 weeks.
Headworks Screen - Began finalizing the probable cost estimates for design and
construction.
Odor Control System – Began finalizing the proposed plan and probable estimated
costs for designand construction.
Vactor Unloading area – Began preparing probable design and construction cost
estimates.
This Month
Attend meeting with DPW Director and the Surfside WWTF Chief Operator to review
the recommendations and probable costs for the Corrosion Control, Headworks
Screen, Odor Control SystemandVactor unloading area.
Page 9
Attachment 2 – Kopelman& PaigeWhite Paper onOcean Outfalls