Core Team notes 11/3/14

11/3/14 CORE Team Notes

Attending: Kinny Perot, Kate Stephenson, Elizabeth Courtney, Peter Lazorchak

By Phone: John Connell

Peter Lazorchak gave us an update on what he’s been working on in terms of the wastewater design process. He touched base with Pete Munoz about system size and construction cost. The basic parameters they use to calculate cost are $15-20/s.f. for constructed wetlands. The size of the wetland is roughly approximate to the number of gallons per day being processed- i.e. if we have 5,000 gallons per day of wastewater, we would design a 5,000 s.f. wetland (or combination of wetlands). Peter talked to folks at the State about whether we could get a variance for reduced flow rates based on our historical data, which has shown an average of approximately 25 gallons per day per ‘weighted user’ vs. the standard engineer’s estimate of 100 gpd for a “boarding school” which is the closest equivalent on the books to YM. Peter thinks the next step is to go to the state with a more formal proposal for an adjusted flow rate of 65-70 gpd. Kate will also send Peter the original data sheets so he can look at peaks of flows. Unfortunately this is old data from 2008-2009 and we are not currently tracking daily or weekly flows.

If the adjusted flow rate is accepted by the State, we would be looking at a 3500-4000 s.f. area of constructed wetlands. This is a large amount of space, and Peter feels it would be likely spread out into a few separate cells, some up the hill and some lower. The need is to balance cost (fewer units is less expensive) with the need to make it fit on the landscape around everything else we have planned. We discussed how treating human waste with water is really dumb. John recommended reading The Toilet Papers by Sim van der Ryn and Kinny was interested in looking into regulatory paths to promoting alternative waste treatment.

Kate gave a brief update on her correspondences with Andres, who is helping to draft a grant proposal to the state ERP which is due November 10^th. Once we get a draft on Tuesday from Andres, Kate will work to finalize the whole application. We are unclear at this point of the amount to request and whether it is just for design and planning or whether we are going for construction costs as well. (See grant details pasted below).

We talked about how to make our meetings more productive by having specific homework and task assignments in between meetings. Kate expressed concern that given where we are in the wastewater and stormwater design that it seems unlikely to be able to start construction in the spring since we also have to complete our Act 250 amendment. Elizabeth questioned whether this project would be considered a ‘minor’ application or whether it would require a hearing.

Tasks:

-          Kate to send original water data to Peter L.

-          Kinny to get name of abutter to the north from the Waitsfield Town Office

-          Kate to send letter to abutter re: what happens with existing culvert when the stream is restored

-          Kate will circulate the document from Tony Stout/Watershed Consulting that shows various permitting and process (attached)

-          Elizabeth will look into the Act 250 timeline

Next Meeting date: Monday, December 1^st at 9AM

Next Meeting Agenda: Peter L. will check back in on design progress, Kate will present options for what to do with the solar tracker installation.

Suggestion: In order to help bring our new Core Team members on board (Ben, Eric, Elizabeth) and make sure we are all on the same page as a group, we recommend scheduling a half day gathering of the whole committee onsite in January. We nominate JOHN, as the Chair, to circulate a Doodle poll with some potential dates (maybe after checking first with Bill’s schedule?).

Grant Details from website:

2015 Ecosystem Restoration Grant - Round 2 - Request for Proposals (dotx, 854 KB) As part of the Ecosystem Restoration Program's (ERP) on-going efforts to reduce surface water pollution from phosphorus and sediment, the fiscal 2015 state budget includes capital funds to support ecosystem restoration projects. The deadline for proposal submittal is 4:30 on November 10, 2014. 

• Frequently Asked Questions (pdf, 335 KB)
• ERP Performance Standards (pdf, 306 KB)
• Act 110 ERP Municipal List (pdf, 27 KB)
• Standard State Provisions (Attachment C) (pdf, 325 KB)
• Model Procurement Procedures (pdf, 391 KB)

Core Team notes 10-3-14

CORE 10-1-14

Friday, October 03, 2014

9:00 AM

9:10    Discuss the Lazorchak Dilemma

o    Moving to Wilcox & Barton in Moretown.  Several offices throughout New England.

Maybe there will be a small invoice from McCain to close out that arrangement and possibly a new contract with the same format from Moretown.
 

9:25   Draft schedule Peter’s deliverables (best guess)

o    Peter Monroz thinks the wetlands will be cost prohibitive unless we can get relief from the state's design flows for a school.  Trying to submit historical data to state as a justification.  There is only very sketchy data from Dave Warren but the school has started recording again.

o    In our favor is the fact that the wetlands are above and beyond the state requirements.  So perhaps there will be some leniency.

o    We should have a handle on the design flows that will be used within a few weeks.  Bill Reed wants them to rough scope the size and cost of the project.

o    Kin inquired about the use of this project for teaching and wondered what size was appropriate for that.

o    Big Question: If the soils are so good that we don't even need the wetland treatment, what is the appropriate resource use ($$) to meet Yestermorrow goals...which are educational and  "doing the right thing".  Andres was reluctant to "throw out numbers" as to square footage but the leach field will be designed for boarding school flows so that's pretty large (100gal/day).  Bill Reed offered 1-2sqft/gallon/day as a rule of thumb.

9:35   Discuss Andreas’ deliverables and how they are contingent on the WW design

o    Stormwater design and daylighting the stream is his focus.  Kin was wondering about the ownership of document part of the contract.  She wants access to the design documents for educational purposes and Andres gave verbal assurances that this would be fine.

o    Because the WW is so integral to the site development, they are waiting for direction from that area before moving the stormwater mitigation.

o    Stream daylighting is where he has been focused.  He wants to get his recent work before the ANR and arrange a site visit from Dept. of Wetlands.  He also wants to engage in a discussion with river management.  Kin endorses this enthusiastically.  Shannon Morrison from wetlands has been out previously as part of the Tracker Project but she might not have looked at the stream.

o    There are two culverts.  They are proposing the removal of the larger uphill pipe but keeping the lower pipe in place as an overflow.  Alternatively, we could discuss removing the lower pipe but first we would want to reach out to the neighbor.  Kate will contact the property owners about removing the lower pipe.

We closed out by talking about how this could work with fund raising.

Current Documents

This is intended as a resource for Yestermorrow students and instructors using the Yestermorrow campus as a site for design projects. It includes links to current site plans, maps, and supplemental material relevant to the development of the campus and will be continually updated as new versions become available.

Plans currently approved by the Waitsfield Development Review Board:
Master Plan Executive Summary (06.29.13)
Master Plan Site Plan 50' scale (06.29.13)
Master Plan Site Plan 100' scale (06.29.13)
Master Plan Site Plan 100' scale open space (06.29.13)

Main Building: *note= not totally accurate as-builts
Ground Floor Plan
First Floor Plan
Building Section

Site Information:
Campus Map with Building Descriptions (not to scale) (2014)
Campus Base Map 80' scale (2008)
Campus Base Map 40' scale (2008)
Orthophoto

Base Maps for Area:
Mad River Topo (North)
Mad River Topo (South)
Waitsfield Natural Resources
Waitsfield Prime Ag Soils
Waitsfield Fluvial Erosion Zones
Waitsfield Zoning
Area Topo

Supplemental Reports:
Forest Management Plan (2013)
Stormwater Feasibility Study (2012)
Stormwater Concept Design (2012)
Watershed Analysis (2012)
Wastewater Basis of Design (2013)
Regenesis Grounding and Process Report (2011)
Regenesis Story of Place Presentation (2011)
Yestermorrow Environmental Assessment (2011)

Stormwater/Wastewater Coordination

Hi folks,

Just a few updates from my meeting today with Peter Lazorchak and Andres Torizzo to talk about the coordination of stormwater and wastewater design and permitting…

We reviewed general timeline of working on these designs and permitting between now and September, then moving into Act 250 permitting over the winter, with the goal being that by May 2015 we have all necessary permits to start moving dirt and doing infrastructure work.

Notes:

Stormwater permits- will need to be renewed annually (approx. $55) until project is fully complete- usually permit is good 10 years and can be extended

Wastewater permits- don’t need annual renewal

We agreed we should revisit our notes about the prime ag soils and remind ourselves how that was finally resolved (or if it was) with Act 250 folks to ensure that doesn’t trip us up down the road.

We wondered about the phasing of the Act 250 permit- are we submitting the full build out master plan, but how does that work over time with permit fees etc?

Wastewater questions for CORE team:

-          What standard do we want to design to for BOD/TSS? The initial proposal from BioHabitats is designed to treat to 10/10 mg/liter. The standard for advanced pretreatment is usually 30/30 mg/liter. The difference would likely mean whether or not we add the polishing sand filter- clearly an extra design step and added cost in construction.  

-          Nitrogen component- this is typically not regulated at the state level for a site like ours, but do we want to be treating nitrogen to a certain level? Peter’s opinion is that given the advanced pre-treatment plus excellent soils in the field that we do not need to take any extra steps for this, since a lot of what the plants in the constructed wetland are doing is treating nitrogen.

-          Test pits- Peter will coordinate the digging of test pits soon in collaboration with folks from the state. He will contact Kingsbury Construction to schedule that. Any reasons to not use Kingsbury vs. Andy DiMario? Kate will check with Dave Warren to see if we have any other excavation needs that might be done at the same time while the machine is here.

Water supply questions:

-          Does our current well have enough capacity for the full build out? Would we need to tap into the upper well? Has any pump testing been done previously on either well to determine their full capacity- this might have been done pre-YM as part of the proposed expansion. If not we need to consult a hydrogeologist and have that testing done.

Stormwater questions:

-          Can we have a swale between the existing main building and pond/wetland given the location of the existing septic storage tanks? (Peter to check with Pete Munoz about re-using existing tanks vs. replacement)

Next steps:

Peter:

• Map out location of disposal field given various setbacks from building envelopes on site plan
• 2)      Talk to state about overall process for permitting constructed wetlands

Andres:

• Create scope of work document for Core Team to review; include overall site grading plan in scope (include any grading necessary for wastewater systems)
• Talk to Tony Stout re: phasing of Act 250 permitting and make recommendations

Kate:

• Send DWG and PDF files of the site plans approved by Waitsfield DRB (Dated Jun 28, 2013) to Peter and Andres
• Look back at correspondence about prime ag soils in upper meadow (Kinny, do you remember how this resolved?)
• Check with Dave Warren re: excavation of test pits
• Look up details on wells and see if we can find any old permits relating to water supply
• Schedule next CORE team meeting/call to discuss questions above regarding wastewater treatment standards

Questions?

Kate

Core Team Notes 9-23-13

In attendance: Kate , John C., Kinny & Bill Reed(phone)

Monday, September 23, 2013

10:13 AM

John summarized a phone conversation he had with BR about the way the planning solution has wondered from the original principles. 

·         We discovered that the original building had to be preserved (75%)

·         We re-directed our efforts to solve for this new constraint and for the DRB approval

·         We maybe weren't as vigilant as we might have been on keeping to our principles.

Kinny sees the building configuration as an improvement with less impervious surface, damming and slowing water flows, protecting the wetlands. John asked Bill if he would enumerate the areas where he sees the most discussion potential vis a vis the new and the old plans.

Discussion of  Daylighting the stream followed.  David Warren, who is most "intimately involved" is the primary (only?) opponent.  Kate wonders about the additional consequences.  Beyond the immediate setback requirements aside, the additional impact on the natural wastewater treatment, the drainage swales, and the general pedestrian experience of the campus.

Kate suggested that we get Peter L and Joel back into to actually locate the engineered wetlands, the drip irrigation, the storm water strategy, etc.  Right now we only have conceptual bubble diagrams.

Kinny brought up Ben Falk's rice paddy strategy for slowing down stormwater.

John suggested the next steps might be:

1.       Bill to review DRB plan and general concepts

2.       Invite the experts to a meeting (maybe mid October)

a.       Peter L (civil engineer)

b.      Joel (ecology & stormwater)

c.       Andres Torizzo (stormwater)

3.       Goal is to work toward a buildable, well defined solution that reflects the storm water, waste water and programmatic needs of the site.

Kate brought up the possibility of bringing the Semester Program on campus next semester, but without housing.  It's important to keep the discussion of when the actual lodging might be built.  Kincaid quickly calculated that the school will need about $2M to accomplish this and we already have 1/4 of that.

Kate will speak with Peter to see how much of Andres work he metabolized.  She will determine if he needs to be brought up to speed before getting together with Andres, Joel, Bill, and us.

Next meeting planned for  Oct 27th - Oct28th.