Laserfiche WebLink
alternative approaches will be selected by the COMMISSION for evaluation or one for further site <br /> investigation (see Table VILL). <br /> F. After sufficient time for review and publicity, the report shall be presented by the <br /> ENGINEER at a public meeting sponsored by the COMMISSION. <br /> G. If authorized to proceed with this work item by the COMMISSION, the ENGINEER shall <br /> perform subsurface investigations on the selected effluent discharge site or sites. The subsurface <br /> investigation shall include the following: <br /> • Installation of monitoring wells on the selected site. <br /> • Characterization of the soils from the monitoring wells. <br /> • Pump testing of the wells to determine hydraulic conductivity of the site. <br /> • Computer modeling to evaluate potential groundwater mounding and nutrient transport <br /> resulting from the effluent discharges being considered. <br /> Phase VIII Environmental Review Documents. <br /> A. ENGINEER shall prepare a Notice of Project Change (NPC) as a follow-up to the <br /> previously-submitted ENF/DRI document. <br /> B. ENGINEER shall prepare an Alternative Screening Analysis Report as described below: <br /> B.1 Building upon the appropriate portions of Phase III and IV, a Draft Final Alternatives <br /> Screenings and Analysis Report in accordance with DEP wastewater planning guidance <br /> documents will be prepared. For each of the up to three selected scenarios, conceptual designs <br /> shall be developed, which are sufficient to reasonably establish the costs which would be <br /> associated with each, as well as to illustrate feasibility of construction, any environmental <br /> impacts, potential land owner impacts, and other critical information. Each should indicate the <br /> likely locations, sizes and types of treatment plants, collector sewers, interceptor gravity sewers, <br /> pump stations, force mains and discharge areas, as well as any other significant facilities, as well <br /> as describe operation management, maintenance, cost, and other issues relevant to an informed <br /> discussion and evaluation of the design by Town officials, major development interests, and the <br /> community at large. Costs are not intended to be detailed site specific construction cost <br /> estimates, but preliminary cost estimates of sufficient detail to allow adequate comparisons <br /> between scenarios, preliminarily suggest allocation of costs to taxpayers, existing home owners <br /> proposed to be served by new facilities, and future residential and nonresidential development, <br /> and determine if sufficient potential municipal resources are potentially available to proceed with <br /> implementation. It should be noted that each scenario shall constitute a basic plan sufficient to <br /> meet the nitrogen targets for each subembayment as suggested by the MEP and TMDL process. <br /> B.2 Evaluation of each scenario shall continue to include modeling of projected nitrogen <br /> impacts using the models developed by the MEP study for the Popponesset Bay and Quashnet <br /> River/Hamblins Pond/Jehu Pond subembayments. <br /> B.3 A report and plans shall be prepared describing in detail the ENGINEER's proposed <br /> preliminary design for each scenario, along with costs, the <br /> projected nitrogen impacts on each subembayment, and the ENGINEER's general <br /> recommendations regarding which scenario appears to be most suitable for application in <br />