1 / 52

Luce Township Regional Sewer District Community Forums

Luce Township Regional Sewer District Community Forums. June 17 and 19, 2008. Welcome and purpose. Review the facts and answer questions that residents have about the proposed sewerage system. Review the feasibility of using an alternative wastewater treatment options.

liam
Download Presentation

Luce Township Regional Sewer District Community Forums

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Luce Township Regional Sewer District Community Forums June 17 and 19, 2008

  2. Welcome and purpose • Review the facts and answer questions that residents have about the proposed sewerage system. • Review the feasibility of using an alternative wastewater treatment options. • Share some recommendations for moving forward. • Identify the key challenges that residents have.

  3. The Team • Contracted by the Spencer County Chamber of Commerce • USI Center for Applied Research • Sue Ellspermann, PhD • 20+ years facilitation experience • USI Dept of Engineering • Dr. Mamun Rashid, PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering from U of Utah and experience working for 4 engineering firms. • Thanks to all who shared information including the LTRSD Board, Commonwealth Engineering, BernardinLochmueller, and interested community members.

  4. Our Agenda 6:45 History of the Luce Township Sewer Project (Grady) Q&A 7:00 Engineering Design review, insights and recommendations (Dr. Rashid) Q&A 8:00 Community Process 8:30 Closing comments and next steps

  5. What do you see?

  6. Groundrules • There will be differing perspectives represented tonight. • Listening to one another carefully. • Please do not “kill” each others’ ideas and comments. • Try to hold Q&A to the end of each presentation. • However, if you need us to clarify along the way, let us know.

  7. History of the project • Q&A

  8. Analysis of Wastewater Management OptionsLUCE Township Regional Sewer District Presented by: Dr. Mamunur Rashid Community Forums – South Spencer High School June 17 and 19, 2008

  9. OUTLINE • Background - key issues, alternatives to consider • Overview of PER & feasibility study • Fact sheet – septic tank & soil absorption system • Soil & Water Quality conditions – NRCS/Dr. David Ralston study • Alternatives (Eco-treatment wetland) – Fulda type • Proposed solution to wastewater management • Summary, conclusions

  10. KEY ISSUES/FRAMEWORK • Wastewater management challenges in LTRSD • Economics, feasibility, cost effectiveness • Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) by Commonwealth Engineers • Feasibility study by BernardinLochmueller • Real concerns about cost: cost-effectiveness of proposed sanitary sewerage system • Willingness for moving forward

  11. ALTERNATIVES • Do nothing - allow the existing septic tank and absorption system to exist, let them deteriorate • Implement sanitary sewerage alternative designed by Commonwealth Engineers • Consider other alternatives such as: • Eco-treatment Wetland - as used in Fulda

  12. PER FINDINGS • Existing system deficiencies: • System constructed prior to soil evaluation requirement • Many systems have direct connections to surface water bodies • Soil conditions/high groundwater levels do not allow for the repair/rehabilitation of most of the system within current regulations • Approximately 13 project locations are designated as 100-year floodplains • 4 wastewater treatment alternatives were identified

  13. PER RECOMMENDATIONS • Alternative C – 3 (all areas and treatment at Rockport) appears to be cost-effective • No significant negative environmental impact is expected • Right-of-way/Easement acquisition will be required • Purchase of land for lift station will be necessary • Easement for sewer lines/grinder pumps necessary • Inter-local agreement will be necessary

  14. FEASIBILITY STUDY (BernardinLochmuehler) • Findings/Recommendations • 90% of County soils are unsuitable to septic systems • Most existing septic systems failed or are failing • Discard existing septic systems to eliminate non-point source pollution • Provide wastewater collection and treatment facilities • Use “Regionalization” approach

  15. SEPTIC SYSTEM SURVEY Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study 

  16. SPENCER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARMENT (2001) • Strongly Supports sanitary sewer project • Rationale: • On-site system failure is well documented • Causes of failure: flood-zone, topography, lot size, high groundwater table, and slow permeability of soils • Consequences: closure and/or limited use of food establishment; several residences have been forced to vacate • Conclusion: • Many problems cannot be solved by on-site disposal method • Sanitary sewer is the only solution

  17. INDIANA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH (2007) • 261 locations (35%) were surveyed • Status of system failures • 16 observed to have failed • 11 had a history of failure • 5 had past failure documented by local health department • 23 locations or structures identified as vacant during survey

  18. ISDH RECOMMENDATIONS • Existing system status • 82 (31%) had construction permit for new or repair; 32 (12%) inadequate system; 147 (56%) no information • Availability of room for replacement • 164 (63%) had adequate area; 61 (24%) limited area; 36 (14%) inadequate area • Existing soil • 43 (16%) had specific soil descriptions; 8 (19%) had soil descriptions not conducive to onsite system installation (pursuant to IAC 6-8.1)

  19. SOIL AND WATER QUALITY PUBLICATIONS: 1. Soil Survey of Spencer County by NRCS 2. Preliminary Engineering Report

  20. ENTITY - HATFIELD • Predominant Soils: Wheeling • Limitations for onsite system: small lot size; large number of failing system in close proximity; adjacent flood plain; • Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight • Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of sample): 14,000 • Need for wastewater facility: Severe

  21. ENTITY - RICHLAND • Predominant Soils: Wheeling, Weinbach • Other considerations: 3 homes vacated; closing of a tavern; • Limitations for onsite system: Slow permeable soil; small lot size; high water table; improper construction of existing system • Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight to severe • Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of sample): 10,000 • Need for wastewater facility: Severe

  22. ENTITY - EUREKA • Predominant Soils: Weinbach, Alford • Limitations for onsite system: Poor drainage; low permeable soils • Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight to severe • Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL of sample): 90,000 • Need for wastewater facility: Moderate

  23. ENTITY – FRENCH ISLAND • Predominant Soils: Woodmere, Huntington • Limitations for onsite system: within 100 year floodplain; flooding is the main limiting factor; • Classification of absorption field Limitations: Slight to severe • Water quality of stream (E. Coli/100 mL): N/A • Need for wastewater facility: Severe

  24. SOIL AND WATER QUALITY – cont. Source:1. Study: Dr. David Ralston, Soil Tech, Inc. 2. Publication: Custom Soil Resource Report for Spencer County, Indiana (USDA/Soil Conservation Service)

  25. FINDINGS – LIMITATIONSTO SEPTIC SYSTEM Severe = 55% of LTRSD area (9735 acres) Primarily due to slow percolation, wetness, flooding, and slope (and other factors) Slight = 35% of LTRSD area (5382 acres) No reason provided Moderate = 9% of LTRSD area (1536 acres) Primarily due to slope Unknown= 1% of LTRSD area (171 acres)

  26. ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM Facts, Figures & Pertinent Study 

  27. FULDA SYSTEM • Eco-Treatment System, consists of: • Subsurface-flow constructed wetland • A vegetated re-circulating gravel filter, and • Soil absorption system (drip irrigation). • Serving 64 connections. • Peak design flow = 13,300 gallons per day. • Treats only “gray water” after solids • removal

  28. FULDA SYSTEM, cont. • Cost summary: • Total project cost = $1,083,000 • Cost per connection = $19,000 (Mark • Harrison) • System performance: • Appears to be cost-effective in terms of • Operating and Maintenance • Meets pertinent groundwater regulations • (<10 mg/L total nitrogen)

  29. FULDA SYSTEM, cont. • Permitted as land application project • Funds: • User fees, IDEM, COIT, CFF & SRF • Fulda did not apply for USDA/RD grant) • Estimated user fee = $63/month • General recommendations by residents: • Water sampling frequency can be reduced.

  30. IS A FULDA-TYPE SYSTEM FEASIBLE? • YES or NO, because: • Fulda has 64 vs. LUCE’s 798 connections • Capital cost: $ 15.2 M (Fulda-Type) vs. • $12.4 M (Sewer) (using $19,000/connection) • Possibly more capital cost, but less Operating • and Maintenance • Cost for piping & septic system replacement • must be determined

  31. IS A FULDA-TYPE SYSTEM APPLICABLE? Yes or No, because • Fulda system may not be cost-effective (in terms of capital cost) for LUCE • Obtaining COIT/RD grant not certain • Engineering/Non-engineering cost for proposed sewer system will be lost • Pumping of septic tank still will be necessary • Regulatory compliance must be obtained Therefore, further detailed analysis is necessary.

  32. FULDA SYSTEM – ADVANTAGES • Existing septic tanks are being used • Meets sewer district’s goals (i.e., user fee) • Green technology - energy efficient • Cost-effective solution • Secondary benefits through drip irrigation

  33. FULDA SYSTEM- DISADVANTAGES • Not a permanent solution for waste water • treatment • Potential to meet future growth is • uncertain • Performance is a function of temperature • and loading • Septic tank will still need pumping • Water quality sampling will be necessary

  34. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS • Many options can be identified to meet LUCE’s need but objectives cannot be a moving target and consensus must be built • 6-possible considerations: • Do nothing • Consider all 4-areas (Richland, Hatfield, Eureka & French Island) for sewerage • Consider all 4-areas (Richland, Hatfield, Eureka & French Island) for clustered Fulda-Type System

  35. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS, Cont. 4. Consider Richland, Hatfield and Eureka for sewerage; French Island -other treatment alternatives or do nothing 5. Consider Richland, Hatfield and Eurekafor clustered Fulda-Type System; French Island -other treatment alternatives or do nothing 6. Consider only Richland & Hatfield for sewerage; Eureka for other treatment alternatives; French Island for “do nothing”

  36. CONSIDERATION No. 1 • Do Nothing.

  37. CONSIDERATION NO. 2 • Permanent wastewater collection & treatment • Eliminates concern of septic back up; operating, maintenance, pumping & replacement of septic system. • Provides opportunity to meet future treatment need • Eliminates water quality concern, and provides all levels of wastewater treatment • Cost items: • Construction/non-construction cost; labor/materials • Administrative, general expenses (1998-2008) • Operating, maintenance & treatment (annual value)

  38. COST & USER FEE ESTIMATES • Funding sources: • USDA/RD grant and loan; • Tap-in fees ($1000/connection) • COIT grant (annual payment of $150,000 for 22 years) • Others: • Interest rate = 4.5%, payment period = 40 yrs • Number of users = 798

  39. SUMMARY - COST ESTIMATES

  40. USER FEE ($78/Connection)

  41. DESIRED USER FEE ($64/Connection)

  42. SUMMARY • Consideration No. 2 (sewerage for all areas) • Based on 2008 total project cost, expenses and funding sources => User fee = 78/Connection • To obtain desired user fee = $64/Connection • Additional grant of $5.6 M must be obtained • Cost of $1.5 M to Rockport Wastewater Treatment Plant could be renegotiated • A Wastewater Treatment Plant can be built in LUCE to minimize cost of sewer line, but it does not appear to be cost-effective

  43. SUMMARY, cont. • Consideration No. 3 (Fulda-system for all areas) • Based on $19,000/connection, capital cost = $15.2 M (about the same as sewerage) • Location for Eco-treatment wetland construction must be identified; sewer line length must be determined; regulatory agencies must be consulted • To obtain user fee: total project cost, amount and sources of loans, grants, and tap-in fees must be quantified • Detailed engineering and economic analysis is necessary

  44. SUMMARY, cont. • Consideration No. 4, 5 & 6 • Wastewater treatment objectives must be identified • Consensus must built among decision makers • Detailed engineering and economic analysis is necessary (more cost to LTRSD)

  45. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Identify and build consensus on wastewater management goals & options (select your Consideration No.) 2. For Consideration 2 (sanitary sewerage for all areas): • Negotiate to reduce $1.5 cost to a lower amount to obtain a more desirable user fee, • Obtain more grant money (obtaining more loans will not reduce user fee, unless the loans are at lower than 4.5% interest rate) • Identify a location in LUCE for WWTP construction

  46. RECOMMENDATIONS, cont. 3. For Consideration 3 (Fulda-type system for all areas): • Consult with regulatory agencies to ensure permitting will be allowed. • Identify locations for Eco-treatment wetland (BernardinLochmueller & Commonwealth could possibly assist in this regard). • Detailed analysis will be necessary to determine feasibility. • Remember: The only permanent solution to wastewater management is to build Sanitary Sewerage System – which is the best solution available today.

  47. Questions? Next Steps

  48. Community Process • Travel to the Commons Area and sit at a table with a flipchart. • Pick a scribe from your table (someone who will capture comments on the flipchart).

  49. Questions to Process • To what extent do you think Luce Township needs sanitary sewers to survive and thrive into the future? Explain. • What are the challenges residents at your table face with signing on to the easement. Select the two most important to share back. • What, if any, additional information would help us move forward?

  50. Shareback • 1 person from each group come forward. • Bring your table’s flipchart sheets. • Share the comments from your table. • Post on the wall.

More Related