Four Regional Wastewater Alternatives Selected For Further Study
The New Hampshire Seacoast Region Wastewater Management Feasibility Study has reduced the number of regional wastewater management alternatives being considered for future study from ten to four.' The study team presented ten alternatives for consideration in February, and has narrowed the number of possible alternatives as part of the effort to identify preferred regional alternatives for future consideration.
'Information used to lower the number of alternatives included verbal and written comments received from the Great Bay Estuary Commission, stakeholders, special interests groups and the public on project reports, the charrette and other public meetings; the findings from the Final Preliminary Findings Report issued in December 2005; legislative requirements; and implications of the alternatives in the following areas: land use and planning, ecology and water quality, technical and engineering aspects, and institutional and implementation issues. ''The four alternatives include: '
- 1.'No Action.' For this alternative, treatment would continue at each of the 17 wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) within the study area, and treated effluent would be discharged at existing surface water discharge locations.' This alternative will be carried forward since it sets a baseline of future conditions against which to compare impacts of the other project alternatives.' Inclusion of a no action alternative is consistent with requirements for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, which may be formally required depending on what alternatives are ultimately implemented.' Please note that although this alternative is considered 'no action,' WWTFs would still be required to meet all future effluent standards.
- 2.'Treatment at Existing WWTFs with a Regional Gulf of Maine Discharge.' This wastewater treatment alternative involves continuing treatment at the existing WWTFs and conveyance of treated effluent through regional infrastructure (e.g., pump stations and pipelines) for discharge to the Gulf of Maine.' This alternative has been selected for further study since Senate Bill 70 requires this study to determine the feasibility to remove treated effluent from the coastal drainage area and Great Bay and discharge it through a regional pipe in the Gulf of Maine.
- 3.'Decentralized Treatment and Continued Use of Existing WWTFs.' Existing WWTFs would continue to be used under this alternative.' However, this alternative assumes only one-third of the future projected increase in wastewater flow for each community would be treated at the existing WWTFs, and the remaining two-thirds of the projected increase in flow would go to decentralized (e.g., on-lot, cluster) systems for treatment and land application.' This alternative would include regional guidance for communities to use for establishing sewer service areas (beyond which sewer extensions would be discouraged) and promoting installation of on-lot/community systems for future developments.' This alternative was developed and chosen to be carried forward for further study largely in response to the many comments received requesting that decentralized treatment be included as part of a regional solution.' This alternative has the potential to limit or control growth in the study area communities, and it would not result in inter-basin transfer of wastewater.
- 4.'Treatment at Existing WWTFs and Discharge at Land Application Sites.' This alternative involves continuing treatment at the existing WWTFs; however, effluent treatment would be upgraded as needed to meet groundwater discharge standards, and treated effluent would then be discharged at local individual land application sites.' All attempts would be made to make this alternative 'all or nothing,' meaning that all treated wastewater discharged in the study area would be to land application sites.' This could mean that some communities may need to collaborate and share a land application site that is in a practical location relative to the WWTFs.' In the rare case that land application is not found to be feasible for a WWTF, treated effluent would continue to be discharged at the existing surface water discharge location (i.e., 'business as usual').' This alternative was selected as one of the four alternatives for further study since it focuses on local land application and, thus, helps to round out the four alternatives by allowing all possible disposal options (i.e., existing receiving waters, Gulf of Maine, and land application) to be analyzed more closely in the next stage of this study.
'
News & Notices