Wastewater Planning Update

Transcription

1 Barnstable WRAC Wastewater Planning Update Department of Public Works May 17,

2 WRAC Proposed Timeline June 2016 Complete Bookends Fall 2016 Complete Gap filling Complete GIS Mapping Layers Winter 2016 through Spring Plan Construction Summer 2017 Complete Draft Plan Fall 2017 Financial Subcommittee efforts Winter 2017/18 Update Town Council on Draft Plan Winter and Spring 2018 Public Outreach and Feedback Summer 2018 update plan Fall 2018 Present Final Draft Plan to Town Council Winter Submit Final Draft to CCC and Regulatory Agencies for review 2

3 Outline Problem Statement Nontraditional Solutions Traditional Solutions WPCF Limitations Phasing Costs Next Steps Discussion 3

4 The Problem Wastewater issues Impaired Embayments Groundwater quality concerns Pond water quality concerns Failing/expensive septic systems Economic development requirements New flood zones Regulatory requirements 4

5 Primary Regulation Massachusetts Estuaries Program (MEP) Collaboration between Massachusetts DEP UMASS-Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and Technology ( SMAST ). Watershed/estuary model predicts water quality changes resulting from land use decision 5

6 Primary Regulation DEP develops TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads Max pollutant a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards pollutant budget Eelgrass is the sentinel species Cape Divided by watersheds Not geo-political boundaries 6

7 Average N Removal by Watershed 7

8 Subembayment N Removal Total Attenuated Controllable N Load (from Barnstable) (kg/yr) Target (kg/yr) N Load Reduction Required (by Barnstable) (kg/yr) % N Reduction Required Barnstable Harbor Watershed Barnstable Harbor* 29,963 27,418 7,491 25% Centerville River Watershed Centerville River East Centerville River West East Bay Scudder Bay 19,236 3,004 2,863 16,235 9,022 3,454 3,149 19,208 10, % 0% 0% 0% Lewis Bay Watershed Halls Creek Hyannis Inner Harbor Lewis Bay Mill Creek Snows Creek Stewarts Creek 7,317 5,722 3,613 2,085 3,535 18,725 13,236 2,716 3,527 8,154 5,925 15, ,098 2, % 72% 76% 32% 0% 0% Popponesset Bay Watershed Pinquickset Cove Popponesset Bay Shoestring Bay , , ,829 19% 0% 44% Three Bays Watershed Cotuit Bay North Bay Princes Cove Princes Cove Channel Seapuit River Warrens Cove West Bay 7,683 9,064 3,935 2, ,666 5,460 8,153 1, ,375 7,582 5, ,445 3,205 1, , % 82% 81% 87% 0% 29% 0% * = Assumed Rushy Marsh Pond Watershed Rushy Marsh Pond % CCC Table Parkers River Watershed Upper Parkers River 20 3, % SubEmbayment by Watershed 8

9 The Plan Needs Multiple solutions working together Title V Systems Traditional Solutions (sewers) Non Traditional Solutions (aquaculture, PRBs, dredging, alternative toilets, etc.) Management Controls (zoning, local regulations) Leverage Adaptive management Phase Solutions 9

10 Two Macro Approaches Source Reduction Management Controls (Zoning) Alternative toilets Fertilizer Reduction Ordinance Collect and Treat Collect Wastewater Convey Wastewater Treat Wastewater Dispose of wastewater In-situ Treatment Address N within the environment 10

11 Fundamental Question On which properties is a traditional (Title V) on-site wastewater system an adequate means of providing for the Town s sanitation and environmental protection, and on which properties is it not? 11

12 Nontraditional Solutions 12

13 Nontraditional Solutions Focus on Three Bays TEAM James Crocker, Town Councilor, Precinct 5 Dr. Brian Howes, School of Marine Science and Technology, U.Mass. Dartmouth Zenas Crocker, Executive Director, Three Bays Preservation, Inc. Scott Horsley, Water Resources Consultant Dan Santos, Director, Barnstable DPW Rob Steen, Assistant Director, Barnstable DPW 13

14 Focus Area Three Bays 14

15 Focus Area Three Bays Four major components to help remove nitrogen using nontraditional methods. Mill Pond Abandoned freshwater cranberry bogs Warren s Cove Stormwater collection and disposal along the river 15

16 Mill Pond The Issue: Mill Pond is full of silt and debris 9 feet thick in places In 20 years nitrogen removal capacity has declined from 20% to 10% Healthy ponds = 30% to 50% If 50% restored, estimated remove over 2,200 kg/year of additional nitrogen The Solution: Dredge to its original depths (sand layer) and perimeter Estimated 60,000 CYs of material (to be confirmed) Pond depths restored to approximately 8 feet in the deepest areas 16

17 Abandon Bogs The Issue: Potential locations for freshwater nontraditional solutions including floating wetlands. The Solution: 208 plan estimated that floating wetlands can remove 8-15% of the nitrogen they encounter. 17

18 Warrens Cove The Issue: Warrens Cove has silted in, currently not appropriate for aquaculture. Has potential to be an ideal spot to serve as a nursery for aquaculture farms The product could then be relocated to aquaculture farms in the lower bays The Solution: Dredging Warrens Cove back to a sandy bottom Establish aquaculture nurseries The Cape Cod Commission has estimated that aquaculture beds/floating racks can remove 815% of the nitrogen they encounter 18

19 Stormwater The Issue: Stormwater systems are in various states of repair The Solution: A comprehensive survey identifying those that need repair, or replacement. Identify new systems/bmp needed to protect water quality Credit for work already done Cotuit Town Dock, etc. 19

20 Other Nontraditional Opportunities PRBs EPA Demonstration Project Prince Cove Area Alternative Toilets Prince Cove Cape Cod Academy 20

21 Traditional Solutions 21

22 Traditional Solutions TEAM Lindsey Counsell, WRAC Chair Brian Dudley, DEP Amanda Ruggiero, Assistant Town Engineer James Benoit, GIS Manager Andy Boule, Division Supervisor Water Pollution Control Division Dr. Dale Saad, Senior Project Manager Casey Scrima, Intern for Wastewater Affairs Dan Santos, Director Rob Steen, Assistant Director 22

23 Lewis Bay 23

24 Centerville River 24

25 Three Bays - Lower 25

26 Three Bays - Upper 26

27 Popponessent Bay 27

28 Barnstable Harbor 28

29 Total View 29

30 Other Traditional Opportunities Credit for the fertilizer control regulations Relocation of public water supply Better protected sites Eliminates difficult Zone IIs Reuse of the current well sites Zoning opportunities Potential infill control New growth control Types of growth control 30

31 WPCF Capacity Existing treatment limit ~ 4.2 MGD Onsite disposal limit ~ 3.0 MGD Biowin modeling More in-depth disposal study Component Flow Conditions Capacity (MGD) Parshall Flumes Minimum Flow Peak Hour Aerated Grit Chamber Peak Hour 20.0 Primary Clarifiers Maximum Month Peak Hour Aeration Tanks Maximum Month 4.2 Secondary Clarifiers Maximum Month Maximum Day Peak Hour Chlorination Facilities Peak Hour 13.8 Sand Infiltration Beds Maximum Month

32 WPCF Existing Flows Flow Component Average Daily Flow Maximum Daily Flow Minimum Daily Flow Peak Hour Maximum Month Minimum Month Sewage (MGD) Septage (MGD) N/A Total (MGD) Time of Occurance March Feb July 4, 2014 January July 1, 2015 July 20 - Aug Jan 18 - Feb Therefore ~ 1-2 MGD of treatment capacity ~ 1 MGD of disposal capacity Some of this is already spoken for 32

33 Phasing 33

34 Phasing Plan Three 20-Year Phases Phase I Years 0-20 Phase 2 Years Year 3 Years

35 Phasing Plan 35

36 Phase Statistics Item WW Captured (GPD) Load N Removed (kg/year) Number of Parcels Affected Road Miles % N Removed Phase 1 (0-20 Years) 637,000 21,400 3, % Phase 2 (20-40 Years) 740,000 26,700 3, % Phase 3 (40-60 Years) 326,000 11,800 1, % Total 1,703,000 59,900 8, % Very conservative - No credit for nontraditional solutions Installed in Phase I Monitored throughout Phase I and II Ideally will enable avoidance of Phase III via Adaptive Management 36

37 Costs 37

38 Cost Estimate Assumptions Developed a per mile collection system cost estimate Assumptions One pump station for every 2 miles sewers One mile FM for every pump station Average pipe size is 10 inch diameter Gravity Service to ROW = 1,060 Minimal bridge crossing Four foot diameter SMH every 300 feet, age depth 6 feet No Storm Drain as part of this project 10 test pits per mile (~1 every 500 feet) Pave full width, 30 foot width assumed, 1.5 inch top coat, 2.5 inch binder 1,000 feet of waterline per mile needs to be disturbed Five foot sidewalk reconstructed, 1 side, 1/3 of mile Curb reset or replaced for 1/4 of the mile, both sides = 2,640 ft curbing per mile Package Pump Station "neighborhood" sized $25,000 traffic control allowance $15,000 electrical allowance 5% construction contingency 20% technical services 10% land acquisition Results $2.7M/mile Cost for plant upgrade assumed at 30% collection system costs 38

39 Potential Costs/Phase Very rough, planning level cost estimate Predicated on a large number of assumptions Nontraditional Solution costs not included Item Road Miles Cost per Mile Collection System Costs ($) Assumed WPCF Cost % Assumed WPCF Cost ($) Total Cost: Phase 1 (0-20 Years) 62 $2,700,000 $167,400, % $0 $167,400,000 Phase 2 (20-40 Years) 66 $2,700,000 $178,200, % $53,460,000 $231,660,000 Phase 3 (40-60 Years) 38 $2,700,000 $102,600, % $30,780,000 $133,380,000 Total $532,440,000 All costs in 2017 dollars 39

40 Next Steps June August, WRAC reviews Technical Solutions Phasing Financial Subcommittee Craft the financial plan DPW Submit draft plan to MEP for modeling and confirmation of removals Continue to develop the Nontraditional Solutions and costs Start to write background document September, WRAC approves the plan October November, WRAC, develop public outreach plan DPW Update modeling if required Start discussions with regulatory agencies Continue background document Begin preliminary design efforts December presentation to Town Council - (workshop?) January - August 2018 Public Outreach Fall 2018 Present Final Draft Plan to Town Council Winter Submit Final Draft to CCC and Regulatory Agencies 40

41 Special Thanks Amanda Ruggiero, Assistant Town Engineer James Benoit, GIS Manager Casey Scrima, Intern for Wastewater Affairs 41

42 Discussion? 42