Small Towns Matter by Maya Donelson

Small Towns Matter Integrated resource management to support the revitalization of rural town centers By Maya Donelson | April 2016

The case of Colrain, Massachusetts USA

Small Towns Matters Integrated resource management to support the revitalization of rural town centers By Maya Donelson

This thesis was presented to HafenCity University in Hamburg, Germany in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Science Degree Program in Resource Efficiency in Architecture and Planning April 2016

The Case of Colrain, Massachusetts USA

HafenCity University Supervisors Prof. Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Dickhaut Prof. Dr. Ing. Udo Dietrich

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank those who have contributed their support, time, information and advice throughout the investigation and writing of this thesis. I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Wolfgang Dickhaut and Professor Udo Dietrich for their guidance, direction and support. Additionally, I would like to thank all those who graciously took the time to meet with me to discuss the various influences, conditions and limitations that exist within the Colrain Village Center and to discuss different possibilities and ideas for solutions. These inputs were crucial and extremely helpful. I would also like to thank my fellow REAP colleagues whose varied interdisciplinary and cultural backgrounds have enriched this research and who have helped shaped and given me confidence in the way that I research and present. I would also like to say thanks to Luis Miguel Varela for his company, support and encouragement throughout this process. Also, last but not least thanks to the Donelson heritage in Colrain which has have made this study all the more rewarding. Hopefully this thesis will be able to contribute in some small way to the sustainability and revitalization of the Colrain Village Center.

ABSTRACT Rural areas are facing a number of challenges, one of which is the wastewater challenge to smart growth. Existing and relatively compact town centers are often too small for centralized wastewater infrastructure, but conventional on-site septic systems are often not suitable or failing, contributing to vacancy and a loss of historic structures. This thesis investigates whether integrated resource management can help support the revitalization of one small town center located in Colrain, Massachusetts, by taking a closer look at possibilities for source separation and alternative treatment. Links between wastewater, energy and food are made throughout the analysis. Results show that while producing energy and nutrients from wastewater is possible, alternative treatment utilizing biofilter/constructed wetland technology may be more suitable. This system has the ability to meet local performance requirements and be accepted by inhabitants. Additionally, it is relatively simple, cost effective, energy use is minimal and it adds value in the form of public/natural habitat. However, further investigation, piloting, public management and financing are necessary for implementation. On the one hand, soils within the Colrain Village Center are limiting when it comes to septic systems, but on the other hand they make great farmland. Therefore, market and community gardening has also been integrated into the concept and so have solar photovoltaics. Together, the intention is that these elements support revitalization and add value to the Colrain Village Center to make it attractive for existing residents and specifically for young adults who are needed to sustain the local population. Keywords: integrated resource management, small town centers, wastewater, failing septic systems, decentralization, smart growth, source separation, constructed wetlands, added value, local energy and local food.

ABSTRACT

CONTENTS 1

INTRODUCTION

1 3 4 4 6 10 11 11 12 12 14 15 16

COLRAIN ANALYSIS

17 19 20 21 23 28

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

31 32 32 42 42 44 46 47 47 47 48 52 54 54 57 58

SMALL TOWNS MATTER POPULATION CHANGE THE UNITED STATES COLRAIN, MASSACHUSETTS BEYOND POPULATION DECLINE THE RESEARCH PROCESS THE PRACTICAL PROBLEM THE RESEARCH QUESTION THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM THE WATER MANAGEMENT PARADIGM THE RESEARCH PROBLEM THE METHODOLOGY CLIMATIC CONDITIONS THRIVING LIVES & LIVELIHOODS FURTHER TOWN DEMOGRAPHICS THE COLRAIN VILLAGE CENTER VACANCY AT THE CROSSROADS WATER SUPPLY THE WASTEWATER CHALLENGE TO SMART GROWTH PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER ENGINEERING REPORT OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES CRITIQUE IN SEARCH OF A DECENTRALIZED APPROACH DEFINING DECENTRALIZATION ON-SITE ALTERNATIVES TO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM PROBLEM PREVENTING FAILURE: SEPTIC SYSTEM CARE AND MAINTENANCE DEALING WITH SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURE: ON-SITE ALTERNATIVES SCALING UP TO CLUSTER SYSTEMS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS WASTEWATER STREAMS AND QUANTITIES WASTEWATER COMPOSITION WASTEWATER FLUCTUATIONS

THE ALTERNATIVES

59 60 60 63 65 67 67 68 70 72 72 73 73 74 75 77 78

ADDING ADDITIONAL VALUE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SUSTAINABLE FOOD

79 80 83

CONCEPT INTEGRATION

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

THE POTENTIAL FOR SOURCE SEPARATION DUAL SYSTEM - BLACKWATER TO ENERGY DUAL SYSTEM - BLACKWATER TO COMPOST TRIPLE SYSTEM - YELLOW WATER TO FERTILIZER THE POTENTIAL FOR ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT MEDIA FILTERS CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES THE FINANCIAL BARRIER TO ALTERNATIVES THE NEED FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND FINANCING PILOTING THE BIOFILTER/CONSTRUCTED WETLAND SYSTEM PRIORITY TREATMENT CLUSTERS ESTIMATING WASTEWATER FLOW & SPACE REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM PERFORMANCE & REGULATORY COMPLIANCE DISPERSAL & REUSE AFTER TREATMENT CONCEPT PROPOSAL

99 100 116

INTERVIEW SUMMARIES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

CONTENTS

vii

FIGURES Figure 1 | World Urbanization Trends Figure 2 | Population Distribution Figure 3 | Number And Size Of Urban And Entirely Rural Places In The United States Figure 4 | Map Of New England Figure 5 | Map Of Colrain Within Franklin County Figure 6 | Colrain Topography & Population Distribution Overview Figure 7 | Colrain Population Change 1800-2030* Figure 8 | Colrain Generational Distribution Figure 9 | Colrain Age Distribution Figure 10 | The Research Process Figure 11 | The Old Sustainable Development Paradigm Figure 12 | The New Sustainable Development Paradigm Figure 13 | Proposed Sustainable Development Goals Figure 14 | A History of Changing Water Paradigms Figure 15 | Research Methodology & Structure Figure 16 | Monthly Average Rainfall Figure 18 | Average Yearly Temperature (1928-2014) Figure 17 | Average Yearly Rainfall Figure 19 | Worker Class & Industry Figure 20 | Level of Education & Means of Getting to Work Figure 21 | Various Demographics Figure 23 | View Of The Colrain Village Center From Above Figure 22 | Location & Street Connectivity Figure 24 | Project Area, Village District & Historic District Figure 25 | Orientation & Property Identification Figure 26 | Land Use Analysis Showing Existing Community Amenities & Services. Figure 27 | Vacancy Figure 28 | Public & Private Property/Land Figure 29 | Inhabitant & Floor Area Vacancy Figure 30 | Water Supply Figure 31 | Public Water Supply Detail (View Facing East) Figure 32 | Overview Of Site Specific Limitations & Requirements Of On-Site Septic Systems Figure 33 | Septic System Functionality Figure 34 | Slope Analysis Figure 35 | Depth To Groundwater Figure 36 | Soil Drainage Class Figure 38 | Soil Filtration Rate Of The Most Limiting Layer Figure 37 | Other Environmental Restrictions Figure 39 | Minimum Lot Requirements Figure 40 | Approximate Septic System Area Requirements Figure 41 | Development Potential Figure 42 | Investigated Alternatives By Weston & Sampson Figure 43 | Example of a Centralized Wastewater Management System Figure 44 | Example of A Decentralized & Hybrid Wastewater Management System Figure 45 | Water Conservation (Option 1) Figure 46 | Alternative Treatment (Options 2-5) viii

3 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 12 13 14 16 19 19 19 21 22 22 24 24 25 25 27 29 29 30 33 33 34 35 35 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 43 46 46 49 49

Figure 47 | Source Separation (Options 6-7) 50 Figure 48 | Collection Alternatives For Cluster Systems 53 Figure 49 | H ousehold Wastewater Sources, Streams & Quantity Per Person Per Day in the United States 55 Figure 50 | H ousehold Wastewater Sources, Streams & Quantity Per Person Per Day in Colrain (Estimate) 56 Figure 52 | Colrain Monthly Water Usage 57 Figure 51 | Contents Of Wastewater 57 Figure 53 | Weekday Domestic Wastewater Flow Patterns 58 Figure 54 | Images of Flintenbreite LĂźbeck (Left) 60 Figure 56 | Household Demand Versus Biogas Heat & Electricity Production Potential 61 Figure 55 | E nergy & Heat Balance Of Anaerobic Digestion Using Different Vacuum Technologies

Figure 57 | A n Overview Of The Sustainable Development Goals Addressed By The Flintenbreite, LĂźbeck Settlement. 62 Figure 58 |Example Of The Clivus Multrum Composting System 64 Figure 59 | Urine Separation Concept From Toilet To Field 66 Figure 63 | Wastewater Treatment Train 67 Figure 60 | Typical Treatment Train For Sites With High Groundwater and/or Limited Space. 67 Figure 61 | Typical Treatment Train For Sites With High Groundwater and/or Limited Space. 67 Figure 62 | Typical Treatment Train For Constructed Wetlands in Cold Climates 68 Figure 64 | T reatment Train Featuring Constructed Wetlands For Household Applications In Cold Climates 69 Figure 65 | Assessment of the Treatment Alternatives 71 Figure 66 | Priority 1 - Cluster Systems For Properties With Failing Systems 74 Figure 67 | Priority 2 - Community Cluster System For Existing Properties With Small Lots 75 Figure 68 | Priority 3 - Community Cluster System For New Development 75 Figure 69 | Conceptual System Design To Serve The Needs Of The Renovation Cluster 77 Figure 70 | Per Capita Carbon Emissions In Franklin County 80 Figure 72 | E stimated Renewable Energy Generation In Franklin County is 2.3x Consumption Needs 80 Figure 71 | Energy Consumption by Sector In Franklin County 80 Figure 73 | Massachusetts Household Energy Consumption & Costs In 2009 81 Figure 74 | Present and Theoretical Electricity Production from rooftop Solar Photovoltaics 81 Figure 75 | The Town of Colrain Potential For Food Self-Reliance/Sufficiency 84 Figure 76 | Prime Farmland 85 Figure 77 | Proposal For Concept Application Within The Colrain Village Center 87 Figure 78 | A Summary Of How The Different Elements Of The Proposal Address The Six Sustainable Development Goals 88 Figure 79 | Concept Map Showing Sustainable Development Contributions And Investigations In Integrated Resource Management 89 Figure 80 | Soil Type & Texture 116 Figure 81 | Wind Speed Analysis 121

FIGURES

TABLES & IMAGES Table 1 | Basic Cost Comparison of Various Alternative Systems Table 2 | Approximate Wastewater Design Flow & Spatial Estimate Table 3 | Biofilter/Constructed Wetland Performance Table 4 | Alternative Technology General Use Requirements Table 5 | Reuse Of Reclaimed Water Table 6 | Colrain Inhabitant Estimate & Properties With Public Water Table 7 | Public/Commercial Wastewater Design Flow Calculations Table 8 | Residential Wastewater Design Flow Calculations Table 9 | Colrain Village Center Solar Electric Generation Capacity Calculations Table 10 | Food Self-Sufficiency & Self-Reliance for New England, Franklin County & Colrain Table 11 | Monthly Water Use Data Table 12 | Indoor & Outdoor Water Use Calculations Table 13 | Alternative Assessment Criteria and Rating System

72 74 76 76 76 117 118 118 120 122 122 122 123

Image 1 | View Of The Colrain Village Center From A Distance 1 Image 2 | Colrainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Historic Civil War Veterans Memorial Hall Building 9 Image 3 | The Now Vacant Lot Where Memorial Hall Once Stood 17 Image 4 | Vacancy 28 Image 5 | View Of A Previous Drinking Water Reservoir 31 Image 6 | Barnhardt Manufacturing Wastewater Treatment Plant 43 Image 7 | Solar Water Heating 62 Image 8 |Open Space and Orchards 62 Image 9 |Rainwater/Stormwater Collection & Distribution 62 Image 11| Horizontal Constructed Wetland In Stuhare, Czech Republic 73 Image 10|Terraced Constructed Wetland System At Sidwell Friends Middle School 73 Image 12| Community Scale Horizontal Constructed Wetland 73 Image 13 | B uildings With Limited Space To Meet Their Wastewater Needs Which Compose The Renovation Cluster 75 Image 14 | Building Integrated Solar Panels at the Katywil Farm Community 79 Image 15 | K&L Organic Growers & Friends (Market Garden) 83 Image 16| Farm Stand (Lyonsville Farm) 84 Image 17| Roadside Farm Stand (Lyonsville Farm) 84 Image 18| Market Garden At the Edge Of The Colrain Village Center 84 Image 19 |Town Selectman Jack Cavolick In His Chicken Coop 99 Image 20 |Colrain Sewer District Files 102 Image 21 |One of the Homes In The Conway Village Center 103 Image 22 |Collected Urine 106 Image 23 | Underground Urine Storage Tank 106 Image 24 | Shared Solar Electric System at Katywil Alongside A Family Of Pigs 107 Image 25 |View Of Katywil Farm Community 108 Image 26 |The Outhouse Is Still Visible In The Architecture Of This Home 109 Image 27 |Example Of Public Participation In The Planning Process 111 Image 28 |View Of One Of The Few Dairy Farms That Is Still In Operation 112 Image 29 |View From Within The Chicken Coup 113 Image 30 |White Raspberries Grown On The Property 113 Image 31 |Raised Backyard Vegetable & Fruit Beds 113 x

ABBREVIATIONS BOD

Biological Oxygen Demand

LPF

Liters per Flush

COD

Chemical Oxygen Demand

MCDs

Minor Civil Divisions

CSTR

Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

Constructed Wetland

EUR

Euro

NPDES National Pollutant Elimination System

Discharge

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

PWS

Public Water System

G/CAP/D Gallons Per Person Per Day

SAS

Soil Absorption System

GIS

Geographic Information Systems

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

Grinder Pump

GPD

Gallons Per Day

GPF

Gallons per Flush

HRT

Hydraulic Retention Time

FRCOG Franklin County Council Regional Governments

I/A Innovative and (Technologies)

Alternative

STEP Septic Tank Effluent Pumping System STEG Septic Tank System

Effluent

Total Nitrogen

Total Phosphorous

Gravity

IRM

Integrated Resource Management

TPS

Terra Preta Sanitation

IWPA

Interim Wellhead Protection Area

TSS

Total Suspended Solids

USD

United States Dollar

WWTP

Waste Water Treatment Plant

YRS

Years

IWRM Integrated Water Management

Resources

L/CAP/D

Liters Per Person Per Day

LPD

Liters Per Day

ABBREVIATIONS

1 INTRODUCTION Colrain is one of those picturesque small towns located in the hills of Western Massachusetts whose characteristic white church steeple peeks up above the trees and indicates the presence of a village. Its village center seems to fit perfectly into the landscape as it is nuzzled in between the mountains and along a riverbed, reflecting a nice balance between nature and development which doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t impose on the land, but seems to enhance it. The villages in Western Massachusetts, not unlike neighboring villages in Vermont, follow the fluvial waters as they make their way down and around the mountains. When these villages developed, water was their lifeline. It fueled the mills that attracted inhabitants and spurred the development of compact and now historic communities. While water is still abundant in the region today, what was once a villageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biggest

asset has become a hindrance. Not only are these communities affected by flooding and more frequent and severe storms, but due to more stringent water regulations, treating their wastewater presents a challenge. Town centers are often too small for centralized wastewater solutions and at the same time, they are too compact and various site specific conditions limit the suitability of traditional onsite septic systems. This situation is considered to be a barrier to smart growth. Yet, a lack of appropriate wastewater infrastructure is not the only challenge small rural communities face. Many of the historic buildings which compose the heart of these communities are becoming physically obsolete and furthermore towns are struggling to maintain their populations in times of increasing urbanization. Therefore, under the umbrella of new paradigms

Image 1 | View Of The Colrain Village Center From A Distance // Photo: Author (2015)

in sustainable development and water management, this thesis will investigate whether integrated resource management can support the revitalization of the Colrain Village Center. It will thoroughly investigate the limitations to conventional on-site wastewater treatment, analyse previous wastewater feasibility studies and look at different decentralized (on-site and cluster) alternatives which could be applied within the context of the Colrain Village Center. An assessment of alternatives will be made and a proposal for their application will follow. Connections and links between water and other resources such as energy and food will be reflected upon throughout the investigation and special attention will be paid to systems and alternatives which not only meet the needs of the town center, but which also have the potential to add value to it. If small towns matter in an increasingly urban world, they will need to overcome existing challenges to wastewater treatment and at the same time they need to make themselves attractive to retain young adults, and inspire those who have left, to return. Since the majority of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources are located in rural areas, it is believed that rural sustainability is of vital importance.

INTRODUCTION

SMALL TOWNS MATTER Urbanization and population growth are perhaps the most important phenomenons of this century. As the world becomes more urban, people also consume more and per capita consumption is increasing (Rees & Wackernagel,1996). The world’s population is expected to reach over 7.3 billion by 2050 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015) and by the same time, 66% of the world‘s population is expected to be urban (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014). According to Ralf Otterpohl, such estimates “should be seen as a horror scenario; considering that urban dwellers are mostly 100% dependent on outside supplies“ (Otterpohl, Wendland & Bettendorf, 2015, p.12). These three factors - rapid urbanization, population growth and increasing consumption will place increasing demands on a finite planet. Traditional rural settlements were characteristically compact and directly linked to the agricultural land and resources that sustained them (Rees & Wackernagel,1996), but this is not the case for rapidly urbanizing areas. Cities feed on material and energy resources from well beyond their boundaries and inhabitants are often blind to the consequences and impacts of overconsumption and excessive pollution that is caused by their existence (Rees, 2012). Over time urban developments have become less reliant on their hinterland and products and resources can now be sourced from around the globe. According to Rees & Wackernagel (1996) global trade facilitates the depletion of the world’s resources and encourages regions to exceed local limits, posing increasing risks to society. This global risk is harder to see and difficult to predict, but it should not be ignored. Where

70%

195

The World Is Here 54% Urban & 46% Rural (2014)

N BA

30%

195

Figure 1 | World Urbanization Trends Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2014). Graphic: Author.

70%

205

30%

“There can be no urban sustainability, without rural sustainability“ - Rees, 2012, p. 260

rural areas have historically survived without the city, urban centers are absolutely dependant on the “hinterland“ and its people, ecosystems and life support processes (Newman & Jennings, 2008; Rees, 2012: Wackernagel, Kitzes, Moran, Goldfinger & Thomas, 2006). Rees & Wackernagel (1996) also casually link cities to global ecological decline, and state that cities are not in of themselves sustainable. At present, cities emit 60-70% of worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (UN-Habitat 2011), consume 60-80% of global energy consumption and 75% of the world’s natural resources (Swilling, Robinson, Marvin & Hodson, 2013), in addition to producing at least 75% of the world’s waste (Rees & Wackernagel,1996). Considering these figures, it is hard to think of cities as sustainable. However, these facts will also inspire new approaches to sustainable development in urban areas and thus cities have become a focus for sociologists, economists and architects who nonetheless favor concentrating assets there (Van Leeuwen, Nijkamp & de Noronha Vaz, 2013). This is also because according to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2014) it is assumed that urban areas can provide public transportation, housing, electricity, water and sanitation more cheaply and with minimal environmental damage compared to rural development patterns. While the endeavor to make our cities more sustainable is an important one and there are a number of benefits that can be achieved by locating growth there, rurality and urbanism seem to be out of balance. As urbanization occurs, rural areas are increasingly left behind as people venture on to urban areas. As written in A Pattern Language, “If the population of a region is weighted too far toward small villages, modern civilization can never emerge; but if the population is weighted too far toward big cities, the earth will go to ruin because the population isn‘t where it needs to be, to take care of it“ (Alexander, Ishikawa & Silverstein, 1977, p. 17). However, just because people live in small towns or villages does not mean that they can and will take care of the land and its resources. This of course depends on whether rural residents can secure their livelihoods without damaging the natural resource base (Briggs et. al., 2015). This perceived imbalance and the increasing ecological footprint of modern society should be taken seriously and human consumption which extends far beyond geographical borders, merits attempts toward greater local resource

independence and self-reliance, for both urban and rural areas. This becomes especially important in the context of climate change where increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, droughts and more frequent flooding will affect the access and supply of resources.

POPULATION CHANGE This thesis takes the opportunity to look at rural small town sustainability with a focus on one small town named Colrain, which is located in the United States - part of the most urbanized region of the world (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014). Population distribution and change will be highlighted, first in the broader context of the United States and then considering the specific case of Colrain, Massachusetts.

THE UNITED STATES The distribution, number and size of settlements in the context of rural/urban migration will be presented in the following.

Population Distribution At present 81% of the United States population is urban and lives on a mere 3% of the land, whereas the remaining 19% is rural and lives on 97% of the nation’s land. It is on this land where the majority of farmland, energy, water, metal, timber, fish, wildlife and open space resources are located. The majority of urban areas in the United States are located near the coasts or close to water 81% of the population lives on 3% of the land

19% of the population lives on 97% of the land

Figure 2 | Population Distribution Source: US Census Bureau (2010a). Graphic: Author.

INTRODUCTION | SMALL TOWNS MATTER | Population Change

bodies or rivers. This follows historic population distribution trends and larger cities tend to be concentrated near the coastline and smaller inland agricultural populations are located along river basins (Small & Nicholls, 2003).

URBAN | RURAL PLACES 13,000

12,000

Number And Size Of Rural & Urban Places1 11,000

While a large portion of the population is urban, the number of small entirely rural places far exceeds the number of larger urban ones (Figure 3). What we think of as cities, towns, villages and boroughs are defined by the US Census Bureau as incorporated places. An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a compact populated place (US Census Bureau, 2012b). There are 12,228 small incorporated places with less than 1,000 people, of which 8,833 have populations with less than 500 people, and 4,400 have populations with less than 200 people (US Census Bureau, 2010).

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

The number of small rural places is also likely to be much greater because these figures do not include “town or township governments” which are found in 20 states across the United States and referred to as Minor Civil Divisions (MCDs). The governments of MCDs serve a broader area as opposed to one specific populated place, but most MCDs also contain one or more populated places within their boundaries. If the populated places of MCDs were taken into consideration, it is believed that there would be a much larger number of small rural “populated places” than depicted here.

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

Urban | Rural Population Change

According to the US Census Bureau (2012b), an incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people. It refers to the compact grouping of a population which is what we usually think of as a city, town, or village. 1

1,000

0 < 1,000 1,000 < 2,000 2,000 < 5,000 5,000 < 10,000 10,000 < 25,000

25,000 < 50,000 10,000 < 25,000 5,000 < 10,000 2,000 < 5,000 0 < 2,000

0 > 1,000,000 500,000 < 1,000,000 250,000 < 500,000 100,000 < 250,000

In a period of one hundred and fifty years, the percentage of the population living in urban and rural areas was opposite of what it is today. In 1860, close to 81 percent of the population was rural and only 19 percent of the population was urban (US Census Bureau, 1990). During the same period, the United States population has grown from 31.4 million to 249.3 million (US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2010a). During this period, growth took place in both rural and urban areas. The rural population grew from 25.2 million people in 1860 to around 59.5 million people today (US Census Bureau, 1990 & 2010a). Despite growth, rural areas have been

2,000

NUMBER OF PLACES

Urban

Rural

Figure 3 | Number And Size Of Urban And Entirely Rural Places In The United States Source: US Census Bureau (2010a). Graphic: Author.

historically loosing population due to out migration for most of the 20th century. However, only now has the number of rural births ceased to exceed the number of deaths and people who migrate from rural areas (USDA, 2014). The United States is a therefore a good example of what is likely to occur around the world. Because of rural population decline, the United States Department of Agriculture has made rural repopulation their first strategic goal for 20102015 which involves assisting rural communities to create prosperity so they are self-sustaining, repopulating and economically thriving (USDA, 2010). Of course the distribution and extent of decline varies across the country and some rural areas are experiencing growth instead of decline. The scenic area of Rocky Mountains is an example of rural growth (USDA, 2015). However, other regions in middle America such as the corn belt and the great plains have been decreasing in population more so than other regions (USDA, 2015). In general, the population of rural regions which are dependant on farming, manufacturing or resource extraction have been impacted by population decline to a greater extent than other areas (USDA, 2015). Other contributory factors to rural population decline include reductions in farm employment, a lack of job opportunities, remoteness from metropolitan areas and a lack of amenities, including vibrant main streets and natural features (Mishkovsky, Dalbey, Bertaina, Read & McGalliard, 2010). Today, a specific segment of the population seems to be the largest contributor to rural population decline - young adults. Out-migration is typical of young adults as they pursue higher education and thereafter they stay in urban areas because work opportunities and economic returns are greater there (USDA, 2014). This leaves small rural towns without a cohort of young people who choose to start their families there and this situation is believed to be causing rural population decline for the first time in the history of the United States. Because of this, it has recently been acknowledged that an important strategy to repopulate rural areas includes attracting these young adults to return to where they grew up when they start their families (Cromartie, Reichert, & Arthun, 2015). Cromartie et. al. (2015) found that family motivation dominated young adults to return home, but other factors included shorter commuting times and proximity to outdoor

recreation areas for camping, fishing or hunting. The availability and quality of public community facilities were also cited as positive factors in their decisions to move home. Non-returnees stated that the primary factor keeping them from returning included low wages and a lack of career opportunities in addition a lack of cultural events, shopping and dining opportunities and other urban amenities (Cromartie et. al., 2015). Attracting young adults to return to rural areas will need to be part of any strategy involving rural repopulation and small town revitalization.

COLRAIN, MASSACHUSETTS Colrain, is an example of a small town, with a declining population and a struggling town center. Young people leave town and find it difficult to come back. Colrain is located in New England (Figure 4) in the northwestern part of Massachusetts, forming a part of larger Franklin County (Figure 5). Franklin County is one of the only remaining rural counties in Massachusetts.

Canada

Maine Vermont

New York

New Hampshire Massachusetts Connecticut

R. I.

New England Figure 4 | Map Of New England Graphic: Author. Colrain Franklin County

Figure 5 | Map Of The Town of Colrain Within Franklin County Graphic: Author.

TOPOGRAPHY AND VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT

HIGHEST ELEVATION

1791 FT | 546 M

R I S T I A N

I L

I L S O N

Elevation Contours @ 9.84 FT (3 M) Intervals Buildings Water

L L H I

ELM GROVE

N st The(We

LYONSVILLE

U N T

C H A N D

COLRAIN CENTER

C A A

The No

FOUNDARY VILLAGE

rt hR

iver

Br rth an River ch)

H I L L

rth R er iv

GRISWOLDVILLE

LOWEST ELEVATION

246 FT | 75 M

Barnhardt Manufacturing Company

SHATTUCKVILLE

2 KM

2 MI

Figure 6 | Colrain Topography & Population Distribution Overview Map Source: MASS GIS (2015). Graphic: Author.

Population Distribution A topographical map of Colrain is provided to orient the reader, depict the mountainous topography and indicate the location and distribution of present day settlements (Figure 6). Colrain was surveyed and designated as Boston Township 2 as early as 1736, but settlement of the area was interrupted by the French and Indian War and it wasn’t until 1761 that the town was officially incorporated as Colrain (Patrie, 1974). The first settlers built their homes in the hills: Catamount Hill, Chandler Hill, Wilson Hill and Christian Hill (Patrie, 1974). These hills are still settled today, with one exception - Catamount Hill. This settlement was abandoned in the early 1800s due to its remote and mountainous location which became a disadvantage as the economy of Colrain shifted from agriculture in the hills to the water-powered mills and industry 7

which developed along the North River. As the population shifted, new villages were formed adjacent to the mills and include the present day villages of Shattuckville, Griswoldville, Lyonsville, Foundary Village and the Colrain Village Center (Figure 6). While most of the villages remain intact, only one manufacturing plant remains in business today - Barnhardt Manufacturing Company. The principal and most important village, both past and present, is the Colrain Village Center. Back in the 1800s, the Colrain Village Center was actually one of the largest settlements in the area and it was even referred to as “Colrain City” (Patrie, 1974). A lot has changed since then.

Number & Size Of Places Colrain is considered to be a MCD according to the United States Census Bureau, which

means that neither the town nor its villages - of which there are six of them (Figure 6) - are considered, nor registered as “places” as discussed in the previous section. The largest populated place within the town, is the Colrain Village Center, which has an estimated population of 108 (see Appendix Table 6 on p. 117 for more details regarding this estimate). However, as characteristic of MCDs in New England, Colrain has a municipal government which governs these villages and the broader land area of which they form a part.

AGE DISTRIBUTION

25%

44% 23%

Population Decline Just as the distribution of Colrain’s inhabitants has fluctuated over the course of its relatively short history, the same is true regarding the town’s population. Colrain’s largest recorded population dates back to the early 1800s (Figure 7). After peak population, the population declined until the 1940-50s at which time the town experienced a slight increase - the birth of the baby boomers (1946-64). The baby boomers then gave birth to the Millennial generation (1980-2004) causing a relatively large increase in Colrain’s population between 1980 and 2000. Today, the baby boomers are approaching retirement and contribute to the large percentage (44 percent) of people between the ages of 40 and 64 (Figure 8). Only twentythree percent of the population is of reproductive age and between the ages of 20 and 39. Therefore, it is likely that many young adults which were born between the 1980s and 2000s have left Colrain, succumbing to the national trend where young adults end up leaving the small town they grew up in pursuit of more diverse and better paid employment opportunities that can be found in cities. This will likely contribute to a decline in Colrain’s population and supports the predictions of population estimates provided by the UMass Donahue Institute. (n.d.) and shown in Figure 7.

0-19 YEARS OLD 20-39 YEARS OLD 40-64 YEARS OLD 65 AND OVER Figure 8 | Colrain Generational Distribution Source: US Census Bureau (2010b). Graphic: Author.

2500

POPULATION

2000

1500

1000

Peak Population

Current Population

2,016 Residents (1810 Census)

1671 Residents (2010 Census)

500 Projected Population* 2040*

2020*

2000

1980

1960

1940

1920

1900

1880

1860

1840

1820

1277 Residents (2030)

1800

YEAR

Figure 7 | Colrain Population Change 1800-2030* *Estimate. Source: US Census Bureau (1800-2010) and UMass Donahue Institute. (n.d.). Graphic: Author.

INTRODUCTION | SMALL TOWNS MATTER | Population Change

“One of the biggest hurdles to seeing any kind of use for existing buildings...has been the lack of a financially viable option when it comes to waste disposal” - Editorial, 2014. para. 6.

Image 2 | Colrain’s Historic Civil War Veterans Memorial Hall Building // Photo: David Rogers (2006)

< 90 YRS 85-89 YRS 80-84 YRS 75-79 YRS 70-74 YRS 65-69 YRS

Baby Boomers

60-64 YRS 55-59 YRS 50-54 YRS 45-49 YRS 40-44 YRS 35-39 YRS

Young Adults

30-34 YRS 25-29 YRS 20-24 YRS 15-19 YRS 10-14 YRS 5-9 YRS

Male

100

> 5 YRS

Female

Figure 9 | Colrain Age Distribution The baby boom generation is getting older and there are only a few young adults of reproductive age who will have children to repopulate the town. Source: US Census Bureau (2010b). Graphic: Author.

BEYOND POPULATION DECLINE Despite predictions that indicate rural population decline it is important to understand why many people - especially the Baby Boom generation - have chosen to stay in rural areas when they could have taken advantage of better paying jobs, more convenient shopping and better access to public transportation and health care which are more abundant in urban areas. Robert Wuthrow, who wrote Small Town America: Finding Community, Shaping the Future provides some insight into the lives of small town community members. He also gives some reasons as to why people choose to remain in rural areas based on hundreds of in-depth interviews compiled together with census data. The reason Robert Wuthrow states that small town members have stayed in rural communities is because they “value community and cherish the support it provides...it gives them a sense of belonging” (Wuthnow, 2013, p. 2).

much of residents’ time“ and what a community means is “inscribed in particular places and the tangible aspects of these places — the park, school building, and stores on Main Street“ (p. 3). What Wuthrow found was that what mattered most to community members were “the changes that served as public symbols of community. Decline is symbolized by the hardware store on Main Street that now stands empty or the vacant lot where the drugstore used to be” (Wuthnow, 2013, p. 4). Buildings located within town and village centers embody the identity of small towns and they are also a community’s strongest indicator and representation of decline. The same situation has been found to be true in Colrain.

However, while social interactions, friends and neighbors are important for small rural communities, it is not the only thing that matters. According to Wuthnow (2013), “Community is maintained as an identity by symbols and rituals such as town festivals that actually do not take up

INTRODUCTION | SMALL TOWNS MATTER | Beyond Population Decline

the building for free to someone who had the resources to repair it, but in the end, the town paid $47,760 (~€41,902) to demolish it (Fox, 2013). INTRODUCTION

THE RESEARCH PROCESS

The vacant lot where the Memorial Hall building once stood, and those buildings which still stand but remain vacant, are symbols of decline at the heart of the Colrain community. The loss of historic buildings, such as the Civil War Veterans Memorial Hall, represent a practical problem and have motivated this research.

While Colrain, much like many other small rural towns in the United States, is facing the possibility of population decline, this is not believed to be the only reason leading to abandonment and vacancy within the Colrain Village Center. There are other site specific challenges that make new development, reuse and revitalization difficult.

PRACTICAL PROBLEM

Two of the other major challenges which have been identified include:

M OT

RESEARCH QUESTION

S D

ES N

RESEARCH PROBLEM

DE FI

RESEARCH ANSWER

Figure 10 | The Research Process Souce: Booth, Colomb & Williams (2003). Graphic: Author.

THE PRACTICAL PROBLEM In 2013, one of Colrain’s once popular and historic community buildings, The Civil War Veterans Memorial Hall, was torn down (Image 2). The building is located in the Colrain Village Center and much like others before it, it stood vacant for a number of years in the hope that someone would come along to reclaim and ultimately save the building - but no one came. It is likely that the town would have given away 11

PRACTICAL PROBLEM: The loss of historic buildings which embody the identity of Colrain.

he poor condition of vacant historic T structures and their high associated renovation costs.

A lack of infrastructure.

HEL PS

E AT IV

This research has been motivated as a result of both a question and a problem. The more general and encompassing question which has already been introduced pertains to whether or not small towns actually matter in an increasingly urban world. However, a practical problem typically motivates a research question and forms the basis of applied research. It is this practical problem which typically helps define a research problem (Figure 10). This practical problem is described in the following.

supportive

wastewater

While the high cost of building renovations is a deterrent to the revitalization of historic structures, according to Selectman Mark Thibodeau “It’s always the lack of septic systems that stops things,” (Broncaccio, 2014, para 3). It was also considered to be an important reason as to why the Civil War Veterans Memorial Hall was demolished. Because of this, resolving the wastewater issue has become a priority for the town and is believed to be the first stepwhich is needed on the path towards revitalization of the town center. Last year the town hired Weston & Sampson Engineers to investigate different wastewater solutions for the town village center. As a result of the feasibility study, it was recommended to construct a variable slope gravity sewer extension, connecting the village center to a privately owned and operated Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) that exists and has capacity at Barnhardt Manufacturing Company, approximately 2.3 miles (~3.7 kilometers) from

the Colrain Village Center (Figure 6). Even though the town of Colrain has received a $2.5 million (~€2.2 million) grant from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to cover a portion of the costs of the sewer extension (MA DEP, 2014b), the town is still unsure how to cover the remaining costs which could cost up to $4.36 million (~€3.83 million) (Weston & Sampson, 2014). The community is also split 50/50 as to whether a system such as the one proposed is actually needed and appropriate for the village center (Patricia Smith, personal communication, August 13, 2015, see Appendix, Interview Summaries). At present, the proposal is on hold because it is believed that town residents would ultimately vote against building the sewer extension and because of the complicated agreements that would have to be made between the public sewer district and the private WWTP at Barnhardt Manufacturing Company. This brings us to the next stage of the research process.

THE RESEARCH QUESTION The previous information has motivated the following research question. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is a variable slope gravity sewer extension the most sustainable and appropriate solution for the Colrain Village Center?

To be able to answer this question, before defining the problem in more detail in the analysis section, it was important to first consider new trends in sustainable development and water management. Two paradigms will be discussed. This first includes the evolution of the sustainable development paradigm and the second includes new paradigms in water management.

THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM The recognition that population growth and increasing urbanization are depleting the world’s resources and altering the world’s climate is changing the United Nations visual paradigm of sustainable development. The classic paradigm includes economic, social and environmental pillars which are generally depicted as three equal and mainly independent circles. While this paradigm tends to consider economic, social and environmental aspects equally, it allows room for the economy to expand and balloon beyond the size of the environment i.e. the earth’s life support system (Figure 11). Economy Society Earth’s Life-Support System Figure 11 | The Old Sustainable Development Paradigm Allows for a ballooning economic pillar. Graphic: Author.

The classic paradigm does not incorporate the idea of carrying capacity. Carrying capacity, as defined by Rees & Wackernagel (1996), is the maximum population that can be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without impairing the productivity of that habitat. According to Griggs et. al. (2013) acknowledgement of this concept, has contributed to the establishment of a new visual paradigm which incorporates the idea of carrying capacity and nests the economy within society where the economy must remain within the capacity of the Earth’s life-support systems (Figure 12). This paradigm acknowledges that the process of achieving prosperous human development must remain within the limits of the biosphere. While the old paradigm is still widespread, it is shifting to incorporate the idea that the earth and its resources are finite. Economy

A paradigm is a theory or a group of ideas about how something should be done, made or thought about (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). According to Novotny, Ahern, & Brown (2010) a paradigm is first based on logic, common sense and generational experience. Paradigms are constantly adapting and changing over time because of different environmental, economic and social factors.

Society Earth’s Life-Support System

Figure 12 | The New Sustainable Development Paradigm Society and economy must remain within the bounds of the Earth’s life-support system. Source: Based on Griggs et. al. (2013). Graphic: Author.

INTRODUCTION | THE RESEARCH PROCESS | The Research Question

Updated Millennium Development Goals End poverty and hunger Universal Education Gender Equality Health Environmental Sustainability Global Partnership

People

+ Planet =

Planetary Must-Haves Materials Use Clean Air Nutrient (N & P) Cycles Hydrological Cycles Ecosystem Services Biodiversity Climate Stability

Sustainable Development Goals 1

Thriving Lives and Livelihoods

End poverty and improve well-being through access to education, employment and information, better health and housing, and reduced inequality while moving towards sustainable consumption and production. 2

Sustainable Food Security

End hunger and achieve long-term food security — including better nutrition — through sustainable systems of production, distribution and consumption. 3

Sustainable Water Security

Achieve universal access to clean water and basic sanitation, and ensure efficient allocation through integrated water-resource management. 4

Universal Clean Energy

Improve universal, affordable access to clean energy that minimizes local pollution and health impacts and mitigates global warming. 5

Healthy and Productive Ecosystems

Sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services through better management, valuation, measurement, conservation and restoration. 6

Governance for Sustainable Societies

Transform governance and institutions at all levels to address the other five sustainable development goals.

Figure 13 | Proposed Sustainable Development Goals The Sustainable Development Goals are based on the Millennium Development Goals and Planetary Must-Haves which take into consideration both people and the planet. Source: David, Stafford-Smith, Gaffney et. al. (2013). Graphic: Author.

With this alternative visual paradigm in mind, Griggs (2013, p. 306) and his colleagues suggest the following definition of sustainable development in the anthropocene: “Development that meets the needs of the present while safeguarding Earth’s life-support system, on which the welfare of current and future generations depends.” While there are many different definitions for sustainable development this definition will suffice here. Griggs et. al (2013) then combined the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with planetary musthaves to define six Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Figure 13). The updated MDGs take into consideration the broad goals previously outlined by the United Nations and recently updated in 20151. The planetary must-haves are based on nine global environmental targets defined by decades of science. These targets include earth-system processes such as climate change, rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine), interference with the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, global fresh water use, change in land use, chemical pollution, and atmospheric aerosol loading (Rockström, Steffen, Noone et. al., 2009). Griggs et. al (2013) The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals include: 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. Source: United Nations General Assembly (2015). 1

simplified the sustainable development goals in order to make them more manageable and applicable to both developed and developing nations. They were also established with the idea that they could be implemented from the global to the city scale. In order to solve the practical problem of deteriorating buildings and a lack of wastewater infrastructure by identifying a suitable solution for wastewater treatment, a solution will be developed that explores the Sustainable Development Goal - Sustainable Water Security - as identified by Griggs et. al. (2013). However, it will also keep in mind the other goals and apply the concept of Integrated Resource Management (IRM).

THE WATER MANAGEMENT PARADIGM Just as the paradigm for sustainable development has changed to incorporate new concepts such as the earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s carrying capacity, water management paradigms have also evolved throughout history. Five historic water management paradigms have been depicted by Novotny et. al. (2010). The fifth and future paradigm is Integrated Water Resource Management. These paradigms are shown in Figure 14 and described in further detail below (based on Novotny et. al. 2010). The first paradigm is characterized by basic water infrastructure, both supplied and disposed of without treatment. Water was procured locally, mainly through the use of wells and other surface waters, surface drainage for stormwater was minimal and surfaces were still largely permeable. Privies and outhouses were used for wastewater. The second paradigm advanced earlier engineering principals and techniques to capture, transport and store water to meet increasing water demands. Not only were long-distance aqueducts used to acquire water, but rainwater harvesting systems also played an important role. In order to get rid of waste, communal latrines and sewers where introduced to convey waste underground and discharge it into flowing water bodies. ENGINEERED WATER SUPPLY

Paradigm 1

Paradigm 2

FAST CONVEYANCE

INTEGRATED

FAST CONVEYANCE

WITHOUT MINIMUM TREATMENT

(Water)

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

WITH END OF PIPE TREATMENT

Wastewater

Stormwater

Privies & Outhouses Surface Drainage No Treatment

Surface Drainage No Treatment Rainwater Harvesting

Stormwater

Wastewater

Surface Drainage No Treatment Surfaces

Privies & Outhouses Introduction Of Flushing Toilets & Sewers No Treatment

Pervious To Semi-Permeable

Surfaces

Power Supply Gravity

Wells & Long-Distance Aqueducts Treatment By Sedimentation & Filtration Stormwater | Wastewater

Drinking Water Wells & Long-Distance Aqueducts Centralized Treatment Facilities Stormwater |

Wastewater

Widespread Use Of Flushing Toilets Combined Sewers Introduction of Primary & Secondary Treatment

Combined Sewers Long-Distance Transport & Regional Centralized Sewer Systems Mandatory Secondary Treatment

Surfaces

Impermeable Surfaces and

Medium Imperviousness

Flood Control

Medium Imperviousness

Power Supply

Fossil Fuels

Water & Wind

Power Supply Fossil Fuels

Paradigm 5 Present

Wells, Long-Distance Aqueducts, Storage & Conveyance Some Treatment

Drinking Water

Paradigm 4 Clean Water Act- ca. 1972

Wells & Surface Water Some Gravity Flow Water Tunnels (Qanads) No Treatment

Drinking Water

Decentralized Paradigm 3

industrialization ca. 1850

Drinking Water

Middle Ages

Past

Centralized

Drinking Water

Future

BASIC WATER SUPPLY

Short-Distance Transport Water Saving Technologies Treatment for Potable Water Stormwater Decentralized Surface Drainage Storage, Reuse & Infiltration Wastewater Decentralized Source Separated Storage & Reuse Regional Resource Recovery Facilities Surfaces Pervious To Semi-Permeable Power Supply Renewable Energy

POLLUTION.........................

ENVIRONMENTAL AWAKENING......................................

Figure 14 | A History of Changing Water Paradigms Adapted from Novotny, Ahern, & Brown (2010). Characteristics of the fifth paradigm were created by the author, based on various literature sources. Graphic: Author.

INTRODUCTION | THE RESEARCH PROCESS | Paradigms

The third paradigm is characterized by fast conveyance with little to no treatment. In addition to domestic waste, fossil fuel driven industrialization contributed often toxic waste to wastewater. Combined sewers could not manage the combined wastewater and stormwater flow during storm events because of increased imperviousness. This quickly polluted water sources and endangered public health and new treatment technologies were introduced to provide minimal treatment for wastewater, which included septic tanks and leaching fields in the late 1800s and Imhoff tanks, activated sludge tanks, trickling filters and sewage lagoons in the early 1900s. The fourth paradigm is where we find ourselves today. This paradigm is also characterized by fast conveyance, but in response to the extensive pollution and public health risks of the third paradigm, end of pipe treatment is now required. Environmental restrictions, controls and regulations are commonplace and protecting the environment and improving water quality is a priority. While end of pipe treatment made dramatic improvements to water quality, traditions of fast conveyance, combined and centralized sewers, long distance transport and economies of scale still dominate traditional engineering practices, even though these have led to serious environmental, economic and public health problems. The fifth paradigm is emerging as a result of a failure of the conventional approaches to water management implemented during the third and fourth paradigms and the increasing stresses of aging water infrastructure, urbanization and climate change (Novotny et. al., 2010). According to Novotny et. al. (2010), the fifth paradigm will “most likely implement distributed and decentralized cluster-based water/stormwater/ wastewater management with water and energy reclamation that could be supported by renewable energy” (p. 75). The paradigm is referred to as Water Centric Urbanism by Novotny et. al. (2010) however another term that is frequently used and which has already been introduced is Integrated Water Resources Management (Allan, 2005; Novotny et. al., 2010, David et. al., 2013). A frequently used definition for IWRM is that it “promotes coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital systems” (Global Water Partnership, 2000, p. 22). However, Allan (2005) 15

states that “focusing on water is a misleading theoretical point of departure, which leads to incomplete and even banal explanation” (p. 197). Therefore, for the purposes of this thesis, the concept of IWRM will be used, but the term “water” is dropped in an effort to integrate other resources and goals of sustainable development into the concept and proposal for Colrain.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM The context of sustainable development and water management, in addition to evidence of population decline and the specific and practical problems present in Colrain has helped define the following research problem. RESEARCH PROBLEM: Can integrated resource management support the revitalization of the Colrain Village Center?

The main objective is to present alternative decentralized solutions to wastewater treatment in line with the fifth paradigm of integrated (water) resources management which add value to the Colrain Village Center in support of its revitalization but also incorporates and integrates other aspects of sustainable development including the goals of thriving lives and livelihoods, food security, clean energy, and healthy and productive ecosystems. The following questions will be addressed: What are the specific constraints to on-site wastewater treatment in the Colrain Village Center? How much water flows into and out of the Village Center. What infrastructure is currently in place? What is currently being proposed by Weston & Sampson? Is it appropriate? What are the basic characteristics and quantities of the different water streams? Is source separation applicable to the context? What other alternatives are available? What technologies are appropriate and why? How can these technologies support integrated resource management and how can they add value to the Colrain Village Center? What would an integrated system look like and how could it support the revitalization of the Colrain Village Center in the future?

APPLICATION

A NA L Y S I S EN T

OLO N GIE AG S M

TO A

E) nolo G gies (OF ) F

DataATHER (Tec IN h

DATA G

SIT PR

EM ps. BL (Ma

FIN udies D E C a se S t

A N& O I ) T . . I ...

SIS NALY

DATA GAT

LITERATURE REVIEW

& P ho HE D ne (W RI a t a (Rep ater S NG rts, upp (O Pa l y F F r a dig Info S ms rm ) a

DE FI

RESEARCH PROBLEM

TECHNOLOGIES, PARADIG N MS

RESEARCH QUESTION

ALTERNATIVE VISIO

THE RESEARCH PROCESS

RESEARCH ANSWER

HEL PS

T VA TI

RE VISION FOR INTE D FUTU FIRST EVALUTATION OF ALT GRATED R N A E ERNATI D VE SU ESOU ATIV RESENTATION AN ITABL R P ERN E TEC CE M T L A HN A

E) IT tion)

PRACTICAL PROBLEM

, T e Stu s

E LV

er E) ts Farm SIT iden N- , Res n) (O fficialsormatio NG own O dy Inf

Interv iews DAT ( Data Comm A GA (Ph unit oto y M THE s, R em R epo b I rts ers ,C a

TECHNOLOGIES, ADDED VALUE

ALTERNATIVE VISION

Figure 15 | Research Methodology & Structure Sources: The research process: Booth, Colomb & Williams (2003). The structure, methodology and graphic: Author.

THE METHODOLOGY The results of the aforementioned investigations will lead to a research answer which will ideally help solve the practical problem which motivated the research to begin with. The research process lies at the heart of the methodology and provides the framework and context for the work which will be carried out. It is supported by the analysis which involves gathering data and information through a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods. A review of relevant literature will take place throughout the analysis and will guide the future vision and the application and evaluation of technologies. Qualitative research methods utilized include interviews, case-studies and photos. Other aspects are quantitative and include the presentation of local demographics in addition to presenting the quantitative aspects of wastewater. Maps and information graphics will be used as visual tools to present both qualitative and quantitative data throughout the analysis and application.

INTRODUCTION | THE RESEARCH PROCESS | The Methodology

2 COLRAIN ANALYSIS The first part of the analysis will provide a summary of the Colrain Village Center which effects the lives and livelihoods of residents. It will provide an overview of relevant demographic characteristics, address the townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional connectivity, land-use and the introduce the problem of vacancy. Additionally, it will present the climatic conditions. The second part will focus on the wastewater problem. It will identify and map various conditions which are present and which limit septic system functionality. It will also present and analyze the Weston & Sampson Engineering proposal and provide a critique of

recommendations. Furthermore, in an attempt to gain a better idea of how much water is actually used and requires treatment water consumption for within the Colrain Village Center will be estimated. The third part of the analysis will present the concept and goals of decentralization, discuss the different streams, quantities and composition of household wastewater and introduce source separation. These investigations will help guide the development of different solutions for wastewater which integrate the concepts of decentralization and source separation.

Image 3 | The Now Vacant Lot Where Memorial Hall Once Stood // Photo: Author (2015)

“Our town is completely disappearing before our eyes.” - Sarah McKusick (Editorial, 2014)

INTRODUCTION

COLRAIN ANALYSIS

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 50|10

48 | 8.9

46 | 7.8

44 | 6.7

42 | 5.6

10 | 8.9

90 | 32.2

5 | 12.77

YEAR Figure 16 | Monthly Average Rainfall The average yearly rainfall data was calculated by the author using data from the Greenfield, MA weather station. Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (2015). Graphic: Author.

2010

2000

1990

1980

1970

2 | 5.08

2010

2000

1990

1980

1970

1960

1 | 2.54

1950

DEC

NOV

SEP

OCT

JUL

AUG

JUN

APR

MAY

-60 | -51.1 MAR

0 JAN

-30| -34.4

FEB

2 |5.1

3 |7.62

1940

0 | -17.8

4 |10.2

4 | 10.16

1930

30 | -1.1

6| 6.7

RAINFALL (IN | CM)

6 | 15.24

TEMPERATURE (°F | °C)

110 | 43.3

RAINFALL (IN | CM)

12|10

60 | 15.6

1960

YEAR

Figure 18 | Average Yearly Temperature (1928-2014) The average yearly temperature is for Massachusetts Climate Division 1 (West). The trend line is +0.2 ° F. Source: National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (n.d.). Graphic: Author.

AVERAGE YEARLY RAINFALL

AVERAGE MONTHLY RAINFALL & TEMPERATURE

8 | 7.8

1950

38 | 3.3

1940

40 | 4.4

1930

Climate change is causing temperatures and rainfall to increase in the region (Figure 18 and Figure 19). Temperature and rainfall is also increasing in intensity and extremes. In 2011, Tropical Storm Irene washed away bridges and flooded homes along many of Colrain’s rivers. This event serves as a reminder of Colrain’s vulnerability to flooding which must be taken into consideration when planning for future infrastructure and development.

AVERAGE YEARLY TEMPERATURE

TEMPERATURE (F | C)

According to the Köppen climate classification system, Colrain has a Cfb climate which means it has a cold continental climate, lacking a dry season but featuring warm summers. Average monthly temperatures are around 20°F (-7°C) in winter and 70°F (21°C) in summer with an average annual temperature of 45°F (7°C). Colrain receives between 3-4 in (8-10 cm) of rainfall each month, with the most rainfall occurring in May and the least rainfall occurring in February.

YEAR Figure 17 | Average Yearly Rainfall The average yearly rainfall data was calculated by the author using data from the Greenfield, MA weather station. The trend line is +0.09 in. Source: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (2015). Graphic: Author.

COLRAIN ANALYSIS

THRIVING LIVES & LIVELIHOODS The following will provide a broad characterization of Colrain, present further relevant demographic characteristics and introduce the Colrain Village Center by analyzing and presenting its regional connectivity, land-use characteristics and vacancy which all effect the lives and livelihoods of Colrain residents. While rural communities differ in complex ways and no two communities are exactly alike, five different categories have been defined by Mishkovsky et. al. (2010) that make it easier to identify challenges and future opportunities for sustainable growth and development. These categories which are characterized by the interaction of land and place include gateway communities, resource-dependent communities, edge communities, traditional main street communities and second home and retirement communities. Of course, rural communities may fall into more than one category. The defining characteristics as outlined by Mishkovsky et. al. (2010) are presented here: Gateway Communities are located close to high amenity recreational areas. They typically provide food, lodging, and other associated services and are increasingly popular places to live, work and play. Resource-Dependant Communities are still largely dependent on farming or on a specific industry. The key challenge is to diversify the economy.

with the other defined groups, but struggle to maintain the quality of life which attracted residents to begin with. Colrain can be considered to be first and foremost a resource-dependant community.

Colrain is a Resource Dependent Community Twenty-one percent of Colrain’s labor force is still employed in resource related activities where agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining compose 10% of the town’s resource related activities and the manufacturing sector composes the remaining 11% (US Census Bureau, 2010-2014). Other factors which indicate that Colrain’s main challenge pertains to diversifying its labor force include its relatively high unemployment rate at 10.8% and the fact that 13% of the population is self-employed. According to Faggio & Silva (2014), high levels of self-employment in rural communities indicate a lack of labor opportunities. However, while diversifying Colrain’s economy may be the towns biggest challenge to retaining its population, Colrain also has other characteristics which pertain to the other four categories. These particularities and others will be highlighted among the more detailed analysis which follows.

Edge Communities are located on the outskirts of metropolitan areas but maintain easy access to economic opportunities and jobs because of highways. Traditional Main Street Communities enjoy compact development and often have access to public transportation. Historic architecture is a vital resource, but they still struggle with vacancy. Second home and retirement communities may overlap

COLRAIN ANALYSIS | THRIVING LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS

FURTHER TOWN DEMOGRAPHICS in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining than is typical for Massachusetts and there are significantly less employment opportunities in professional and scientific services as well as in finance, insurance, and real estate (Figure 24).

As mentioned previously, rural inhabitants are typically attracted to urban areas because they are home to better and more varied work and economic opportunities and better access to public transportation and health care. The following will compare different demographic characteristics of Colrain with those of Massachusetts in order to confirm or negate the aforementioned.

Median Family Income | The median income of a family in Colrain is around $20,000 (~â&#x201A;Ź18,312) less than what it is in Massachusetts as a whole (Figure 21).

Worker Class | Results show that there are almost twice as many people that are selfemployed in Colrain (Figure 24). This is typical for rural areas with comparably poor labor market opportunities (Faggio & Silva, 2014). Nevertheless, Colrain residents seem to have found some success in creating their own work.

Unemployment | The unemployment rate is slightly higher in Colrain (Figure 21). Poverty | There are slightly fewer people in Colrain living below the poverty rate (Figure 21).

Employment By Industry | A much higher percentage of Colrain residents maintain employment

Level of Education | While there are more people with associateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degrees in Colrain, fewer Colrain

EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

CLASS OF WORKER 90

COLRAIN MASSACHUSETTS

POPULATION (%)

CLASS OF WORKER

INDUSTRY

Figure 19 | Worker Class & Industry Comparison between Massachusetts and Colrain. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (2010-2014) and US Census Bureau (2005-2009). Graphic: Author.

Information

Wholesale trade

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities

Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing

Public administration

Other services, except public administration

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services

Construction

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining

Manufacturing

Retail trade

Educational services, and health care and social assistance

Self-employed in own not incorporated business workers

Government workers

0 Private wage and salary worker

residents have more advanced degrees such as bachelor’s or master’s degrees (Figure 25). Means Of Getting To Work | Colrain does not offer any means of public transportation. However, only a very small percentage of people in Massachusetts actually use public transportation to get to work and furthermore, not that many more people drive to work alone in Colrain than do so in Massachusetts (Figure 20). Mean Travel Time To Work | The mean travel time to get to work is the same for Colrain as it is for Massachusetts (Figure 21). Reasons for this may include high rates of self-employment and people working at home, in addition to Colrain’s relative close proximity (30 MI - 48 KM) to other small urban centers such as Greenfield, Amherst, Northampton and Brattelboro which reduce travel time. Access to Health Care | Colrain is not a Health Professional Shortage Area (Figure 20); a designation that is based on the number of primary care providers, poverty, infant mortality/

LEVEL OF EDUCATION

GETTING TO WORK

POPULATION (%)

Second Home And Retirement Housing | Colrain has twice as much housing for seasonal, recreational or occasional use than Massachusetts (Figure 20). Reasons may include its scenic rural landscape and access to recreational opportunities. These demographic characteristics contextualize Colrain and need to be considered as part of the revitalization of the Colrain Village Center. While Colrain is still a resource dependant community, it is fairly well connected to the surrounding area.

MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME

COLRAIN MASSACHUSETTS

low birth weight, fluoridation, youth and elderly population percentages, substance and alcohol abuse prevalence and distance/travel time to the nearest source of care as defined by the (Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 2010). Baystate Franklin Medical Center is 11 miles (17.7 km) away from the Colrain Village Center, and it is directly affiliated with Baystate Medical Center which is 46 miles (74 km) away and one of the highest performing hospitals nationally (Baystate Health, n.d.).

COLRAIN $46,452 US

$67,846 US

UNEMPLOYMENT COLRAIN 10.80%

MASSACHUSETTS

less than

MASSACHUSETTS

more than

8.4%

MEAN TRAVEL TIME TO WORK 30

COLRAIN

28.5 Minutes

equal to

MASSACHUSETTS 28.3 Minutes

BELOW POVERTY LEVEL COLRAIN

LEVEL OF EDUCATION

Worked at home

Other means

Walked

Public transportation (excluding taxicab)

Car, truck, or van - carpooled

Car, truck, or van - drove alone

Graduate or professional degree

Bachelor’s degree

Associate’s degree

High school graduate (includes equivalency)

0 Less then High School Graduate

10.7 %

less than

MASSACHUSETTS 11.6 %

HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREA COLRAIN No

no comparison

MASSACHUSETTS In Some Areas

HOUSING FOR SEASONAL, RECREATIONAL OR OCCASIONAL USE COLRAIN 8.3%

more than

MASSACHUSETTS 4.1%

TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION

Figure 20 | Level of Education & Means of Getting to Work Comparison between Massachusetts and Colrain. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (20102014) and (2005-2009). Graphic: Author.

Figure 21 | Various Demographics Comparison between Massachusetts and Colrain. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (20102014), US Census Bureau (2010b) and MDPH (2010). Graphic: Author.

COLRAIN ANALYSIS | FURTHER TOWN DEMOGRAPHICS

THE COLRAIN VILLAGE CENTER Location

Village Center Zoning

While the Colrain Village Center cannot be considered a Gateway Community because it is not directly adjacent to high amenity recreational areas, it is located along a well traveled secondary corridor which connects the valley of Franklin County to the green mountains in Vermont where a variety of high amenity recreational opportunities attract tourists throughout the year. The green mountains region of Vermont offers skiing, snowboarding and snowmobiling in the winter months and mountain biking, hiking and swimming in the summer. Shelburne Falls is the closest small town which offers a variety of services and amenities, however Greenfield is the closet small urban center offering a broader variety and diversity of services and which is frequented by Colrain residents. Amherst, Northampton and Brattelboro are larger small urban centers that are within 30 MI (48 KM) of Colrain. These larger urban areas feature a number of higher education institutions and health care facilities which offer local employment opportunities, the largest employment industry in Colrain (Figure 24). As of 2003, approximately 2,500 vehicles pass through the center of Colrain every day (MASS DOT, 2003). Route 112, has also been recently designated as one of seven newly designated scenic byways in Western Massachusetts. It is hoped that this designation will bring more people through the village center. The challenge is providing a reason for them to stop as they pass through.

The Colrain Village Center is designated as the Center Village District (Figure 24). Village Districts have been designated with the intention to “encourage a mix of uses that reflect traditional land use patterns” (Town of Colrain, 2012, p. 1). Two other village districts have been designated and include the Griswoldville East Village and the Shattuckville Village (Figure 10). The fiscal, social and environmental benefits of the designation are acknowledged in Colrain’s Protective Zoning Bylaw and the designation supports many of the smart growth principles1 (Figure 27).

Historic Village Settlement Pattern and Building Typologies The Colrain Village Center still retains much of its original 19th century appearance. In 2006 the center of town was designated a historic district (See Figure 24). The historic district features a number of different temporal styles including the Federal, Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, Italianate, Queen Anne, Colonial Revival and Neoclassical styles and features a historic compact settlement pattern which is characteristic of small village centers in New England (Massachusetts Historical Commission, 2006). The historic district is much more compact than development which lies outside it. 23

Wastewater Planning Area (Project Area) The wastewater planning area that is outlined as part of the Town Center Sanitary Sewer Preliminary Engineering Report and which will be considered as a part of this analysis extends slightly beyond the Center Village District to include the properties at the edge of the community. The main reason to include these buildings as part of the planning area is because they are located close enough to the village center to be able to tie into the gravity sewer system as proposed by Weston and Sampson. There upon, they will also be included as part of the present analysis. The Wastewater Planning Area is the project area which will form the basis of this analysis. Land Use The Colrain Village Center features a variety of different land uses. The North River runs along the north edge of the community and mountains and forest land surround the river basin upon which the Colrain Village Center has been built. The river basin features developed land in addition to small patches of open and crop land. Single family residences compose the largest developed land use category, followed by two clusters of multi-family residential buildings at the center of town and along River Street. There The ten principles of Smart Growth as defined by the Smart Growth Network (n.d.) include: 1 Mix Land Uses 2 Take Advantage of Compact Building Design 3 Create a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices 4 Create Walkable Neighborhoods 5 Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place 6 Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas 7 Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities 8 Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices 9 Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective 10 Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration in Development Decisions 1

Figure 23 | View Of The Colrain Village Center From Above Source: Bing Maps (2015)

LOCATION & STREET CONNECTIVITY

To Vermont |Brattelboro SECONDARY CORRIDOR TO HIGH AMENITY RECREATION AREAS AND A LARGER URBAN AREA (JACKSONVILLE ROAD | ROUTE 112)

Main Roadways Colrain Town Boundary State of Massachusetts

COLRAIN CENTER

To Heath QUARTERNARY CORRIDOR TO A REMOTE SMALL TOWN (ADAMSVILLE ROAD)

To Greenfield | Amherst | Northampton SECONDARY CORRIDOR TO LARGER URBAN CENTERS (GREENFIELD ROAD)

To Shelburne Falls

250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 22 | Location & Street Connectivity The town is at the crossroads of a two important roadways which connect to other important tourist centers and urban areas. Graphic: Author.

COLRAIN ANALYSIS | THE COLRAIN VILLAGE CENTER

BOUNDARIES Parcel | Road | River Outlines Wastewater Planning Area (Project Area) Village District Historic District Buildings

250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 24 | Project Area, Village District & Historic District Map Source: MASS GIS (2015). Historic District Source: Massachusetts Historical Commission (2006). Village District Source: Town of Colrain (2012). Map: Author.

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION The North River 30 31

25 21

15 11

Main St.

River Str.

Jacksonville Rd.

5 3 1

0a 46

26 25

21 7 14

19 17 15 13 11 9 16 14 12 10 2

7 8

5 6

3 4

2 1

Herzog Ln. Figure 25 | Orientation & Property Identification Map Source: MASS GIS (2015). Map: Author.

0 0a 3

Greenfield Rd.

Streeter Ln.

2 1

Coburn St.

9 7

6 11

6a 13

0b 16

Parcel | Road | River Outlines Roads Buildings Water (The North River)

are also a few public and institutional buildings dispersed throughout the project area, two commercial structures and one industrial building.

along the way serving the workers operating the mills and manufacturing factories that existed along the North River (Massachusetts Historical Commission, 2006).

Existing Community Amenities and Services

Relatively Recent Sprawling Community Amenities and Services

The Town Office The Post Office Historical Society

The Town Library Elementary School The Fire Station

A mix of land uses, which support a variety of community amenities and services, is an important aspect of smart growth which helps create places where residents can gather for events, to shop and to participate in civic activities. It also helps reduce driving distances, supports the preservation of historic structures, can contribute to a town’s tax base and supports local employment opportunities. The Colrain Village Center currently has a town office, fire

The Town Office Th e Colrain Community Church

The Post Office Elementary School The Fire Station

station, elementary school, post office, library and historical society (See Figure 25). The two commercial establishments which exist include the Post Office and the Bell Atlantic/ Verizon Telephone Exchange, but the later is not considered to be a community amenity or service. While there are 81 registered businesses in the town of Colrain, none of them are located in the town village center (FRCOG, 2014)

The fire station, town office and elementary school were also at one time located closer to the main intersection of the Village Center. According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission (2006), the fire station moved to where it is located today in the 1980s, the town office moved to where it is today in 1990 and the Colrain School moved to where it is today in 1951 (See Figure 25). While these town services are still located close to the center of town and are still considered to be part of the Colrain Village Center, this is still considered to be evidence of sprawl. Other cases of sprawling development include the Colrain Community Church which abandoned the Brick Meeting House - one of the most prominent and characteristic buildings within the town center (See Figure 35) - in 1992 when they built a new structure outside of the Village Center along Route 112.

Recent Losses to Community Amenities and Services

Lacking Community Amenities and Services

Ch andler’s General Store (2005) Memorial Hall (2013)

Th e Green Emporium Restaurant (2014)

These losses were significant for the Colrain Village Center as they added a great deal of life and sociability to the town center. Historic Losses to Community Amenities and Services Law Office Church (2) Barber Hotel and Bar Tin Shop Blacksmith Shop

Auto Garage Cabinet Maker’s Shop School Physician’s Home Trolley

The Colrain Village Center was at one time home to a variety of businesses and services. It was even served by the Shelburne Falls and Colrain Street Railway whose trolley brought residents to and from Shelburne Falls with various stops

The following is a list of community amenities and services which are considered to be part of an ideal neighborhood inventory as recommended by LEED-Neighborhood Design standards and by Farr (2008), but which Colrain is lacking. Food Retail Supermarket Grocery & Produce Farmer’s Market Convenience Store Pharmacy Bank Entertainment Venue Gym Studio Hair Care Laundry | Dry

Cleaner Restaurant Cafe Adult Senior Care Licensed Child Care Community Center Cultural Arts Facility Medical Clinic Place of Worship Public Park Social Services Center

While a small town will not be able to support the large majority of community amenities and services which are part of an ideal neighborhood

COLRAIN ANALYSIS| THE COLRAIN VILLAGE CENTER

LAND USE Roads Parcel | Road | River Outlines Buildings Pasture Cropland Open Land Forest Water Non-Forested Wetland Forested Wetland Multi-Unit Residential Single Family Residential Urban Public | Institutional Commercial Participation | Recreation Industrial Parking Public Open Space | Town Common

Colrain Center Elementary School Town Office

Fire Station

Post Office

Library 0

Historical Society 250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 26 | Land Use Analysis Showing Existing Community Amenities & Services. Map Source: MASS GIS (2015). Map: Author.

inventory, such as the one presented here, due to the relatively low number of people who live in Colrain, according to Farr (2008) 1,000 households are needed to support a corner store, convenience centers need 2,000 households and neighborhood centers need 6,000-8,000 households. Therefore, as the past has shown, the Colrain Village Center can in fact support a corner/general store and a quite possibly a restaurant because of its location along a well traveled scenic byway with decent through traffic. Encouraging a greater diversity of services and amenities in the Colrain Village Center and providing space where these amenities and services can locate themselves is a smart approach to growth which supports community cohesion and contributes to the rural identity of the community. Additional amenities would also make the Colrain Village Center a more attractive place to live, work and play. Therefore, development should be funneled to Colrainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s designated village centers and development outside of these centers should be avoided.

VACANCY AT THE CROSSROADS Not only has the Colrain Village Center recently lost a variety of important community services and amenities, but buildings at the heart of the Colrain Village Center have been disappearing since the early 1900s. In the past, the primary cause was fire. However, recent losses are caused by years of owner neglect and abandonment where the physical condition of the building deteriorates to an extent that it becomes physically obsolete. This occurs when the physical condition of the building is such that it cannot continue to be used productively without new investment, but where the investment exceeds the potential market value of the property (Mallach, 2006). The Horace Winchester House and the Bailey Block were physically obsolete and had become nuisances to the community (Figure 35). A property can become a nuisance

for many reasons; it may be a site of criminal or drug-related activity, it could be a health hazard, it could be a safety risk, or it may simply diminish the property values and the quality of life of its neighbors (Mallach, 2006). According to Mallach (2006) the government has the right to come in and abate a nuisance as necessary, yet few states have actually defined what constitutes a nuisance and what exactly can be done to prevent or abate nuisances. In the case of Colrain, the town has dealt with buildings which have become nuisances by purchasing them and then demolishing them. However, this has come at a cost to both taxpayers and to historic and community integrity. In the case of Memorial Hall, the Town of Colrain owned the building and realized that the potential losses of occupying or maintaining the building exceeded

Destroyed Former Streetcar Barn & Law Office (ca. 1805 - ca. 1950)

Vacant* The Yellow Block | Former Clark Chandler Store (ca. 1813 - Present)

Vacant* The Blue Block |Former Brick Store (ca. 1814 - Present)

â&#x20AC;&#x153;It used to be the cutest little village.â&#x20AC;? - Joan McQuade (2015)

Vacant Demolished

The Brick Meeting House (1834 - Present)

The Horace Winchester House (ca. 1840 - 2012)

Destroyed By Fire (3x) Demolished The Bailey Block |Former Tin Shop (ca. 1850 - 2012)

The Colrain House (1805 - 1886) The Colrain Inn (1886 - 1896) The Colrain Hotel (1902 - 1991)

Image 4 | Vacancy // Source: Massachusetts Historical Commission (2006) Photo: Author (2015)

VACANCY Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Occupied Buildings Recently Demolished No Longer Existing Buildings Vacant Buildings Transitional Vacancy Visual Nuisance

Memorial Hall 1895 - 2013)

250

500 M

250 500 FT

Figure 27 | Vacancy Note: The area of building footprints for buildings which are no longer existing are estimates. Sources: MASS GIS (2015), Dorothy Conway, personal communication (January 29, 2016). Map: Author.

PUBLIC |PRIVATE OWNERSHIP Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Buildings Town Colrain Land & Historic Preservation Trust Private

Colrain Center Elementary School Town Office

Fire Station

Library 0 Figure 28 | Public & Private Property/Land Map Source: MASS GIS (2015). Map: Author.

Historical Society 250

500M

250 500 FT

the benefits. The building also proved obsolete on the market, which according to Mallach (2006) means that the size, location, and physical condition of the building didn’t make it attractive for potential buyers and tenants. The lots upon which these demolished buildings once stood, remain property of the Town of Colrain. Public lot and property ownership has been identified in Figure 28. There are also two central lots which belong to the Colrain Land and Historic Building Trust. This non-profit was formed back in 1992 by four individuals whose desire was to reuse and save the Brick Meeting House located at 1 Jacksonville Road from demolition. This group has been successful in that it has kept the building standing, but the building has been vacant for a number of years. The Brick Meeting House is now under new ownership as of Spring 2016, and the new owners hope to bring new life to the endeavor. However, the non-profit is believed to still own the two large parcels of land adjacent to the building. According to Mallach (2006) an abandoned property may be vacant when there is no one occupying or using the building, but it can also be abandoned if there is someone still living in or using the building. Vacancy can also refer to buildings where the “owner has stopped carrying out at least one of the significant responsibilities of property ownership, as a result of which the property is vacant or likely to become vacant in the immediate future“ (Mallach, 2006, p.1). Therefore, buildings which are not entirely vacant, but which have been abandoned in some way are considered to be vacant in this analysis. The apartment building at 1 Greenfield Road is an example of this type of vacancy. At the same time, there are also properties which are considered to be transitionally vacant i.e. experiencing a change in ownership or rental occupancy, but which have not been empty for long periods of time and which the owners have not neglected to take care of the building. Vacant lots, where upon a building once stood, are another category of abandoned property. They may have been abandoned and then torn down or have long since been lost to fire. Those buildings which have recently been demolished, those which lie vacant or are transitionally vacant, vacant lots, and properties which are not vacant but considered to be a visual nuisance to the community have been identified in Figure 54. The property which is considered to be a visual nuisance, but not vacant, is a property where the owner keeps a number of junk vehicles in the front yard degrading the appearance and quality

21% FLOOR AREA VACANCY

40% INHABITANT VACANCY

Figure 29 | Inhabitant & Floor Area Vacancy Sources: US Census Bureau (2010b) and personal communication, Dorothy Conway (January 30, 2016). For calculations see Appendix Table 6 on p. 117. Graphic: Author.

of the property. Because of vacancy, the number of people that are estimated to live within the project area is ~ 40% less (108 people) than what it would be considering the average household size for the town of Colrain is 2.45 and that there are 74 household units, for a total of 181 people (US Census Bureau, 2010b and personal communication, Dorothy Conway, January 30, 2016). For Calculations see Appendix Table 6 on p. 117.

COLRAIN ANALYSIS | THE COLRAIN VILLAGE CENTER | Vacancy

3 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE Compared to other more arid regions around the world, water is abundant and accessible in the Colrain Village Center. This section will present the water supply system serving the Colrain Village Center before taking a closer look at the problem that arises after the water is used and must be treated before being released back into the environment. An analysis of the physical and environmental limitations of current on-site

treatment systems will be made in an effort to understand what affects both their current functionality and future implementation. It will then present and critique the wastewater engineering proposal completed by Weston & Sampson before taking a closer look at the composition and quantities of wastewater. It will also introduce the concept of source separation.

Image 5 | View Of A Previous Drinking Water Reservoir // Photo: Author (2015)

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

WATER SUPPLY Colrain Village Center Pubic Water Supply (Well #2 Serving Fire District #1 - 34 Properties) Energy Costs Per Year (2015): $1,200 O&M Costs Per Year (2015): $24,800 Estimated 20-Year Lifecycle Costs: $627,132.45 Average Cost Per Household Per Year (2015): $481 Average Cost Per Person Per Year (2015): $329 Water serving the Colrain Village Center is procured by a number of private wells in addition to two public wells (Figure 49). One of the public well serves the Colrain Elementary School and the other (Well #2) serves the Colrain Village Center. The Colrain Village Center PWS is named Colrain Fire District #1. The PWS system is (Figure 31) shows that the water is pumped up from a well whose depth is 60 ft (~18 m) (the static suction head), then it is pumped 3,500 ft (~1,067 m) along Jacksonville/Greenfield Road and up 88 ft (~27 m) (the static discharge head) to reach the water storage tank located on Greenfield Road (MASS DEP, 2003 & Mass GIS 2015). Water from the storage tank is then distributed to the different properties at the base of Greenfield Road by using the pressure of gravity. Well #2 was built in 1994, when it replaced other well points within the village center (MASS DEP, 2003). Yet prior to the use of groundwater wells, the Colrain Village Center was served by two surface water reservoirs located close to where the water tank is located today (Dorothy Conway, personal communication, January 29, 2016). At some point prior to 1990, the reservoirs featured high bacteria counts and a â&#x20AC;&#x153;boil waterâ&#x20AC;? order was issued demanding that a chlorine solution be added to treat the water (Franklin County Planning Department, 1990). This likely provides the reason why the reservoirs were abandoned and the current system implemented. Today, the water from well #2 does not require any treatment and meets the drinking water standards as outlined by the EPA.

Yearly maintenance of the public water system amounted to around $26,000 USD in 2015 (24,000 EUR) (Chase, 2015). These costs include electricity to run the pump, snow and ice removal, general maintenance and repairs in addition to water testing among other items. According to the Fire District Clerk, Dorothy Conway, water breaks within the system can occur up to 4-5 times a year due to movement of the ground, the use of heavy equipment, connections rusting out or because of frozen pipes, among other reasons (personal communication, January 29, 2016). Each time this occurs it requires significant funds to fix the problem in addition to water losses. Based on the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs for 2015, O&M costs for 20 years have been estimated by applying a 20-year Consumer Price index (CPI) estimate of 2.39%.

THE WASTEWATER CHALLENGE TO SMART GROWTH Reducing vacancy and promoting development and a mix of uses in the Colrain Village Center is hindered by a lack of appropriate wastewater infrastructure. This is not only a problem that affects Colrain. Massachusetts has also identified wastewater treatment and disposal constraints, acknowledging on-site systems as a challenge to smart growth in rural areas and the preservation of outlying areas and farmland (EEA, n.d.). There are often a number of site specific conditions which limit the suitability of traditional on-site septic systems and the unit cost of alternative/innovative treatment is higher than standard septic systems and their management is also more elaborate (EEA, n.d.).

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE| WATER SUPPLY

PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY

Colrain Fire District Well #2

Parcel | Road | River Outlines Water Main p

Water Main

w p

w w w

w w

Well #2 Storage Tank 0

250

500M

250 500 FT

Figure 30 | Water Supply Note: The exact location of each private well is unknown. This map only indicates their presence. Sources: MASS GIS (2015) and Dorothy Conway, personal communication (January 29, 2016). Map: Author DLER HILL CHAN

Water Pump

88 FT 60 FT

Water Main

Storage Tank

Water Source (Well #2)

600 FT

SEA LEVEL

Figure 31 | Public Water Supply Detail (View Facing East) Sources: MASS GIS (2015) and Dorothy Conway, personal communication (January 29, 2016). Graphic: Author.

This presents a disadvantage to development and reuse of buildings in existing town centers, especially if it is easier and cheaper for sprawling development. The Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs (2008) has also found that creating new housing or businesses in many of their village centers have been unsuccessful because of a lack of sewage treatment facilities and because of the prevalence of failing septic systems. Vermont has identified more than 200 historic village centers that are without public wastewater facilities which present a challenge in accomplishing their smart growth planning goals (DHCA, 2008). Septic System Functionality | In the Colrain Village Center, all properties are currently served by the most common decentralized on-site wastewater treatment system - a septic system. A septic system typically involves 33

Buildings Vacant Buildings Transitionally Vacant Buildings Parcels with Public Water Private Well Public Well

both primary and secondary treatment. Primary treatment of wastewater takes place in the septic tank and the process involves solids (sludge) settling at the bottom of the tank and scum (primarily oil and grease) floating to the top of the tank. Over time, the sludge at the bottom of the tank is degraded anaerobically, however the rate of decomposition is less than the rate of accumulation and both the sludge and scum must be removed periodically in order to maintain system functionality (National Environmental Services Center, 2004).After primary treatment in the septic tank, the septic system effluent is typically sent to a leachfield. A leachfield contains perforated pipes which are placed in gravel filled trenches and which release septic system effluent into the ground where it is absorbed and treated by soil bacteria. The liquid then recharges the groundwater aquifer after treatment.

of Environmental Protection. Title 5 regulates the design flow for residential and commercial properties, stipulates minimum setbacks from water features, defines minimum allowable depths to groundwater, as well as specifying the engineering design requirements for on-site treatment. An overview of site characteristics, constraints and requirements as outlined by Title 5 can be seen in Figure 32. Title 5 also outlines the process and requirements for the utilization of innovative and alternative (I/A) technologies. Title 5 was implemented in 1978 (MASS DEP, 2014a) shortly after the Clean Water Act went into effect and since then only two properties within the project area have been developed (MASS GIS, 2015). One of which is the Town Hall (Figure 26), built in 1990 and the other was built in 1997 and is located at 31 Jacksonville Road (Mass GIS, 2015). Both properties are located at the edges of the project area. The other systems were built before Title 5 came into effect and the majority of systems must be close to or more than 40 years old. If the typical lifespan of a Title 5 system is 20 - 50 years (EEA, n.d.), it can be assumed that the majority of the remaining systems are approaching the end of their life cycle and may be in need of remediation currently or in the near future.

Relevant Wastewater Regulations | The Massachusetts State Environmental Code, Title 5 (310 CMR 15.000) stipulates the minimum rules and regulations for on-site wastewater systems which are permitted by the local board of health. Design flows greater than 10,000 GDP are governed by The Groundwater Discharge Permit Regulations (314 CMR 5.00) which is administered by the Massachusetts Department

Percolation Rate | MORE THAN TWO MINUTES PER INCH

roundwater Separation | 4-5 FT (~1.2-1.5 M) BETWEEN THE BOTTOM THE STONE AT 2 G THE BASE OF THE LEACHFIELD & HIGH GROUNDWATER 3

W ell Separation | 50 FT (~15 M) FROM A PRIVATE WELL AND 100 FEET (~31M) FROM A PUBLIC WELL

L ot Size | A TYPICAL THREE-BEDROOM HOME NEEDS ~3,300 FT2 (~307 M2) FOR A SEPTIC TANK & LEACHFIELD

S lope | AN IDEAL SLOPE IS BETWEEN 0-3%, BUT THE SLOPE SHOULD BE LESS THAN 30%.

Separation from Open & Running Water | 50 FT (~15 M) Property Line 4

Leachfield Septic Tank

1 2

Surface Water

Groundwater Well

Groundwater

Figure 32 | Overview Of Site Specific Limitations & Requirements Of On-Site Septic Systems Source: Based on MASS DEP (2014a) & EEA (n.d.). Graphic: Author.

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE | THE WASTEWATER CHALLENGE TO SMART GROWTH

SEPTIC SYSTEM FUNCTIONALITY Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Buildings Septic System - Functioning Septic System - Failure Septic System - Variance Septic System - Frequent Pump-Outs

250

500M

250 500 FT

Figure 33 | Septic System Functionality Sources: MASS GIS (2015) & Weston & Sampson (2014). Map: Author

SLOPE ANALYSIS Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Elevation Contours @ 3M Intervals Buildings Water 0-3% Slope 3-8% Slope 8-15% Slope 15-25% Slope 25-60% Slope

Figure 34 | Slope Analysis Source: MASS GIS (2015). Map: Author.

250

500M

250

500M

250 500 FT

Septic System Functionality In the Colrain Village Center| As of 2014, four on-site wastewater treatment systems have failed, five properties need to be pumped out frequently and two properties have applied for and received a remedial variance for their existing system (Figure 33). The two variances which have been approved involve a reduction in the necessary depth to groundwater (personal communication, Micheal Friedlander, Colrain Board of Health, February 1, 2016). According to Title 5, a system fails if there is a backup of sewage into the facility, if their is ponding or damp soil pertaining to effluent discharge in the dispersal area, if the septic tank requires pumping more than four times a year, and if any portion of the soil adsorption system extends below the high groundwater elevation (MASS DEP, 2014a). This is a non-exhaustive list of contributions to system failure. For a complete list see MASS DEP (2014a). Property owners must submit their pumping records to the Colrain Board of Health within 14 days from the pumping date (MASS DEP, 2014a). However, other indicators of system failure do not have to be reported. Therefore, there may be other properties which have systems which are not functioning properly or are failing but that have not been reported to the Board of Health. A property owner is also only required to have their system inspected when a property is bought or sold (MASS DEP, 2014a), so the condition and functionality of many of the systems is largely unknown.

Limiting Septic System Site Characteristics and Requirements Siting a septic system requires an on-site evaluation which includes deep observation hole testing, soil profile determination, percolation testing, landscape position and hydrogeologic properties in order to make a conclusive evaluation of whether a site is suitable and meets the requirements of Title 5 (MASS DEP, 2014a). For the purposes of this investigation, using relevant data layers from MASS GIS (2015) and a Custom Soil Resource Report created for the Colrain Village Center from the USDA NRCS (2015) will be used to provide a basic overview of site specific conditions. However, great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances and this only provides a first overview of conditions. Slope Limitations | For conventional on-site systems the topography of the disposal area should not be located on steep slopes greater than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) (MASS DEP, 2014a)

i.e. a 33% slope. As the village was built in a valley surrounded by mountains, the slope to the backside of many of the lots rises up quickly. Therefore, most lots have limited areas which feature slopes in the range of 0-3% where systems can be easily sited (Figure 34). In general, slopes of 1/4 inch per foot (2.1% slope) are preferred when building sewers. Those areas with slopes greater than 3% make it more difficult to site a system. High Groundwater Levels | There must be at least 4 FT (~122 CM) of naturally occurring soil between the bottom of the stone under the soil absorption system and high ground-water when soils have â&#x20AC;&#x153;goodâ&#x20AC;? percolation rates of more than two minutes per inch, but if soils have percolation rates which are less than two minutes per inch, 5 FT (~152 CM) of separation is required (MASS DEP, 2014a). Within the Colrain Village Center, high groundwater levels may be present at many of the properties close to the main intersection of the Village Center and to the south of Main Street (Figure 35). Limited Drainage and Filtration Capacity | The soil texture and the most hydraulically restrictive soil layer within the 4-5 feet of soil beneath the proposed soil absorption system typically determines effluent loading rates and the size of the soil absorption system. Less permeable soils typically require larger areas for soil absorption and the size depends on the soil textural class and the percolation rate as determined by the on-site analysis. According to USDA NRCS (2015), most of the soils in the project area are either moderately well drained to well drained (Figure 36). For new construction, percolation rates slower than 1 hour per inch are unsuitable, and for system upgrades, rates slower than 1.5 hours per inch are unacceptable. Therefore the capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water could potentially restrict both new development and system upgrades within the project area (Figure 38). Other specific details as to the type and texture of soils and infiltration rates can be found in the Appendix (Figure 80). Lot Size Limitations | Lot size is also important because it relates to the open space needed to be able to construct a Title 5 system that meets the appropriate property line and building setbacks. In the case where reasonable and appropriate soils exist, it is estimated that a typical threebedroom home needs approximately 3,300 FT2 (~307 M2) to construct a system which meets the requirements of Title 5 and 3,900 FT2 (~362 M2) for a four-bedroom home (EEA, n.d.). This

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE | THE WASTEWATER CHALLENGE TO SMART GROWTH

DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Buildings Less than 48 IN (121.92 CM) Between 15-65 IN (38.1- 165.1 CM) More than 80 IN (203.2 CM)

250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 35 | Depth To Groundwater Sources: MASS GIS (2015) and USDA NRCS (2015). Map: Author.

SOIL DRAINAGE CLASS Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Buildings Drainage Class Poorly Drained Moderately Well Drained Well Drained Excessively Drained

0 Figure 36 | Soil Drainage Class Sources: MASS GIS (2015) and USDA NRCS (2015). Map: Author.

250

500M

250 500FT

SOIL FILTRATION RATE OF THE MOST LIMITING LAYER Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Buildings Less then 1 inch per hour 0.06 - 2 inches per hour 0.14 - 6 inches per hour 0.14 - 14.17 inches per hour 0.6 - 6 inches per hour 0.6 - 20 inches per hour 6.0 - 99 inches per hour

250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 38 | Soil Filtration Rate Of The Most Limiting Layer Source: MASS GIS (2015). Map: Author.

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTIONS Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Above Ground Stream Below Ground Stream 100 Year Flood Boundary 500 Year Flood Boundary Priority Habitat of Rare Species Interim Wellhead Protection Area - Zone I Interim Wellhead Protection Area - Zone II Buildings Forested Wetland Non-Forested Wetland Surface Water Setback (Title 5)

250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 37 | Other Environmental Restrictions Map Sources: MASS GIS (2015) and FEMA (1980). Map: Author.

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE | THE WASTEWATER CHALLENGE TO SMART GROWTH

MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS Project Area Outline Parcel|Road|River Outlines Buildings Lots < 20,000 FT2 (1,858 M2) Lots 20,000 - 30,000 FT2 (1,858 - 2,787 M2) Lots > 30,000 FT2 (2,787 M2)

250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 39 | Minimum Lot Requirements Map Source: MASS GIS (2015). Lot sizes are based on Town of Colrain (2012) Zoning Bylaws. Map: Author.

OPEN SPACE NEEDS FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS

8 Bedrooms 880 GPD

3 Bedroom 330 GPD

General Store 200 GPD

Place of Worship (Kitchen)

9,600 GPD

Restaurant

Post Office 336 GPD

1,000 GPD

8 Bedrooms 880 GPD

4 Bedrooms 440 GPD

0 Figure 40 | Approximate Septic System Area Requirements Sources: MASS GIS (2015), EEA (n.d.) and MASS DEP (2014a). Map: Author.

PROPERTY ANALYSIS

(Considering Use and Title 5 Wastewater Flow Calculations)

Not Enough Open Space Sufficient Open Space

3 Bedrooms 330 GPD

250

500M

250 500FT

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Project Area Outline Parcel | Road | River Outlines Buildings Already Developed Development Not Likely Same Property Holders as Neighboring Residence Steep Terrain Other Non-Compliant Lots (Too Small - Less than 20,000 FT2) Potentially Developable Lots

250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 41 | Development Potential Map Sources: MASS GIS (2015) and Town of Colrain (2012). Map: Author.

correlates to around 1,100 FT2 (~102 M2) per bedroom, which has been used to calculate the area needed for homes with more than four bedrooms. Title 5 also calculates wastewater flow per bedroom, where one bedroom equates to 110 GPD (~416 LPD) of wastewater. For details and calculations for both the public and residential wastewater design flow see Table 7 and Table 8 on p. 118 in the Appendix. These assumptions are used to determine which properties may or may not have sufficient open space to cite a septic system. Figure 40 shows that there are three properties which likely do not have sufficient space for an on-site system. While this provides a first estimate for the spatial needs, the actual soil conditions may increase the area needed for on-site treatment and/or prohibit the use of septic systems all together. Other Environmental Restrictions | Further environmental restrictions to onsite systems include the fact that no such system can be constructed in a floodway, within Zone I of Interim Wellhead Protection Areas (IWPA) around a public water supply well, or within 50 FT of private wells and surface waters (Figure 37). Furthermore, Zone II IWPAs are designated as nitrogen sensitive areas which need increased treatment to satisfy the nitrogen loading limitations as outlined by Title 5. Additionally, any alterations to priority habitat areas, which includes the construction, reconstruction and expansion of buildings and sewage disposal systems will also likely require further permitting and review. Colrain Zoning Restrictions | The intensity regulations of the Town of Colrain (2012) Zoning Bylaws for Village Districts limits the minimum developable area of a lot to 20,000 FT2 (1,858 M2). Many of the existing buildings are

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE | THE WASTEWATER CHALLENGE TO SMART GROWTH

built on lots which are smaller than 20,000 FT2 (Figure 39). Therefore, these lots do not conform to today’s standards. This also means that five lots, which could potentially be developed, cannot be because they are not big enough to meet the local requirements (Figure 41). Further restrictions include lots for two family dwellings, which need to have an area of 30,000 FT2 (2,787 M2) (Town of Colrain, 2012). Many of the existing two family dwellings are located on lots smaller than 20,000 FT2. This is problematic when a building sits idle or vacant for two years because, according to the bylaw, after two years a property’s previous use cannot be reestablished and its future use must conform to the intensity regulations as outlined by the bylaw (Town of Colrain, 2012).

LIMITED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The aforementioned conditions can affect the current functionality of existing systems, but they also limit the development potential of each of the vacant and possibly developable lots within the Colrain Village Center. The presence of small lots which do not meet the current zoning regulations, lots with steep slopes and small lots which are owned by the same owner of an adjacent and already developed property are considered to be limiting for new development regardless of site specific soil conditions. These conditions have been indicated in Figure 41. Taking these factors into consideration leaves five lots which are potentially developable. However, two of these lots (located on Greenfield Road and closest to the main intersection - Lots 0 and 0a as indicated in Figure 25, p. 25) may also be limited by local building codes and the presence of an underground stream (Figure 37). According to the Town of Colrain (2006) Building Permit Application, a “Request for Determination” needs to be filled for a building within 200 FT of a perennial stream or river. Additionally, all development within a Village Center needs to include both front and back setbacks of 30 FT and property line setbacks of 15 FT (Town of Colrain, 2006). However, because these lots were at one time built upon, regulations may allow development at these sites nonetheless. It is likely that Title 5 would prohibit the installation of traditional on-site septic systems for any new development within the village center because of site specific conditions such as 41

high groundwater and limited soil permeability. Title 5 also does not allow the application of I/A technologies for new construction unless the owner can demonstrate that a conventional Title 5 system can be installed on the property and no changes are allowed with regards to the size of the soil absorption system, depth to groundwater or depth of naturally occurring pervious soils (MASS DEP, 2014a). This poses a significant barrier for new construction. The only case that a wastewater system can be developed utilizing I/A technologies for new construction is if it is a part of a cluster system. In 2006, Title 5 exempted cluster systems from the requirement of needing to prove that a conventional Title 5 system could be installed on the property, if they comply with local cluster zoning bylaws under the Massachusetts Zoning Act (Chapter 40A, Section 9) or if they provide 50% of the site as permanent open space (EEA, n.d). This indicates that if new development is desired, the wastewater system will most likely need to be developed as part of a cluster system because of the likelihood of noncompliant site conditions.

PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER ENGINEERING REPORT In an effort to overcome the environmental and legal barriers to new development and the use of historic buildings within the Colrain Village Center, the Town of Colrain contracted Weston & Sampson Engineering to complete a preliminary sanitary sewer engineering report to evaluate the feasibility and costs of a system that could overcome the many challenges that traditional on-site systems pose within the Colrain Village Center. An overview and critique of these alternatives will be presented in the following. For more detailed information beyond what is included here, the Weston & Sampson report can be downloaded from the Town of Colrain website.

OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES The report considered four different wastewater alternatives for the Colrain Village Center.

Wastewater Alternatives Considered By Weston & Sampson 1

n-site Conventional | Alternative O Treatment Systems

Sewer Extension to Existing Private WWTP 2a - Gravity and Force Main 2 b - Gravity, Force Main, and Variable Slope Gravity

Community Septic System

New Wastewater Treatment Facility

Alternative 1 | On-Site Conventional/Alternative Treatment 20-Year LifeCycle Costs: Not Identified Energy Costs Per Year: Not Identified This alternative considers the continual use of existing on-site septic systems that are compliant with Title 5. These systems include conventional mounded, and non-mounded systems in

addition to approved I/A technologies. It relies on the property owners to install and maintain their own systems. It is believed that this alternative will not mitigate the environmental impacts nor allow for economic development within the Colrain Village Center. Alternative 2 | Sewer Extension 2a - Gravity And Force Main Sewer Extension 20-Year Lifecycle Costs: $3,472,514 Energy Costs Per Year: $6,453 2b - Gravity, Force Main And Variable Slope Gravity Sewer Extension 20-Year Lifecycle Costs: $3,443,424 Energy Costs Per Year: $3,971 Two different types of sewer extensions were investigated. The first of which (Alternative 2a) is a gravity and force main sewer extension and the second type (Alternative 2b) includes a gravity, force main and variable slope gravity sewer extension. Both systems would connect the Colrain Village Center to Barnhardt Manufacturing which currently has a WWTF that is in operation and which according to Weston & Sampson has the capacity to accept additional wastewater flows. This treatment plant is located around 2.5 miles (~4 kilometers) from the Colrain Village Center, opposite the Griswoldsville Village (Figure 42). The main difference between the two proposals is that additional homes can tie into a variable slope gravity system (Alternative 2b), but not into a system with a force main (Alternative 2a) and therefore the gravity system would increase the number of connections between the village center and the Griswoldville System, making the system more cost efficient (See interview summary with Wastewater Process Project Manager at Weston & Sampson | Anthony DeSimone, P.E., p. 105)August 10, 2015). All customers connected to the system would need to have or continue to use their own septic tanks for primary treatment and only septic system effluent would be transmitted and treated at the Barnhardt Manufacturing WWTF. Additionally, property owners would need to install either a septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) system or a septic tank effluent gravity (STEG) system connecting their septic tank to the

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE| PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER REPORT

Engineering Proposal System Alternatives

Alternative 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant FOUNDARY VILLAGE

The

Elevation Contours @ 9.84 FT (3 M) Intervals Buildings Water

rth River

COLRAIN CENTER

LYONSVILLE

Alternative 3 Community Septic System

Alternative 2 Connection to Barnhardt Manufacturing Company

GRISWOLDVILLE

0.25

0.5MI

0.25

0.5KM

Figure 42 | Investigated Alternatives By Weston & Sampson The report recommends Aternative 2b - Sewer Extension to Barnhardt Manufacturing. Sources: MASS GIS (2015) and Weston & Sampson (2014). Map: Author.

Image 6 | Barnhardt Manufacturing Wastewater Treatment Plant // Photo: Author (2015)

main collector line for transport to Barnhardt. The owner would be responsible for the cost, installation and maintenance of the connection. Alternative 3 | Community Septic System 20-Year LifeCycle Costs: $5,268,364 Energy Costs Per Year: $17,126 The third option involves the implementation of a community septic system which would collect wastewater and then pump it to a community septic system located to the south of Coburn Street (Figure 42). This alternative would eliminate the use of on-site septic systems with the project area. The disadvantages of this system includes the fact that the estimated daily wastewater flow is more than 10,000 GPD (~37,854 LPD), requiring nitrogen removal, thereby requiring a WWTF. Also, the functionality of community septic systems is questioned, especially when restaurants are connected to the system because oil and grease can cause big issues (personal communication, Anthony DeSimone, Wastewater Process Project Manager at Weston & Sampson, August 10, 2015). Additionally, the land needed for the system would need to be acquired/bought. Alternative 4 | New Wastewater Treatment Facility 20-Year LifeCycle Costs: $8,884,804 Energy Costs Per Year: $17,126 Wastewater would be pumped to a new WWTF along Jacksonville Road (Figure 42). The WWTFs that were investigated included the following pre-packaged options: - A Dynatec Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) - Amphidrome PlusÂŽ | Biologically Active Filter (BAF) / Sequence Batch Reactor (SBA) - A Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC). A major disadvantage of the aforementioned systems is that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be needed because the daily wastewater flow would be greater than 10,000 GDP (~37,854 LPD). Based on conversations that Weston & Sampson has had with the EPA, it is considered highly unlikely that a permit would be issued. Weston & Sampsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Recommendation | The gravity, force main and variable slope gravity sewer extension (Alternative 2b) which will connect the Colrain Village Center to the WWTF at Barnhardt Manufacturing Company is recommended because Weston & Sampson considers this

alternative to be the only solution which meets the project goals of environmental protection and economic development in addition to being the most cost effective solution.

CRITIQUE Critique 1 | Outdated population trend data is used which predicts conditions of GROWTH, however new population trend data predicts conditions of DECLINE. The feasibility study and the alternatives it presents are based on the assumption that the population of Colrain will grow in 2020 and that a portion of this growth will occur within the Colrain Village Center. However this assumption is based on old population trend data from the Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER) which was produced in 2003 and which has since been discontinued. Therefore, it does not represent the shift in economic and social trends which have taken place since then. The newest population data from the UMass Donahue Institute (Figure 7, p. 8) indicates population decline. This is important because the number of users which can connect and pay for a centralized system is vital. Furthermore, it does not consider vacancy within the town center and the fact that many of the buildings are in bad physical shape. A local example showing the financial repercussions of an over-sized system is located right next door in the small town of Charlemont. Charlemont installed a centralized WWTF to support growth within their small town center, but the town is currently loosing around $50,000/ year because 50% of the connections to the WWTP are dead (personal communication, Glen Ayers, FRCOG Regional Health Agent, August 19, 2015). Charlemont serves as a warning for Colrain, that it should question implementing a large costly wastewater management solution. Systems must be designed to be flexible/ adaptable to vacancy and changing demographic trends such as population growth and decline without becoming an economic burden to the town that invested in them. Critique 2 | On-site conventional/alternative treatment systems and solutions were not presented nor identified. The potential for cluster systems was ignored entirely.

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE| PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER REPORT

No innovative/alternative treatment systems were presented as part of the engineering report. This is important because cluster systems are typically more cost effective if they are shared between different properties due to their additional maintenance and sampling requirements in addition to the added cost of system components which are higher than traditional septic systems (EEA, n.d). Another important reason to investigate the possibility of cluster systems is because they allow for new development, even in cases where difficult site conditions exist. Furthermore, cluster systems would treat less than 10,000 GPD (~37,854 LPD) which means that they would not require a NPDES permit. According to Conway Planning Board Chair and Wastewater Committee Member Joe Strzegowski, whose small town is also looking into wastewater alternatives, it may be possible to build separate leachfields which would treat less than 10,000 GPD (~37854 LPD), thereby avoiding the need for a NPDES permit (personal communication, Planning Board Chair and Conway Wastewater Committee Member Joe Strzegowski, August 3, 2015). If this is done, the permitting of the system could remain with the local board of health. Critique 3 | The site specific conditions which limit septic system suitability within the Colrain Village Center were not presented. Therefore an understanding of the limiting conditions is not apparent. The report simply states that the suitability of septic systems within the Colrain Village is limited, however it does not provide the reasons why it is considered to be limited as were previously outlined. Critique 4 | There was no consideration for integrated resource management or the fifth water paradigm. All alternatives investigated are centralized approaches to wastewater treatment which are aligned with the old fourth paradigm of water management. They do not consider the benefits which could be achieved by a decentralized approach nor consider the effects or possibilities of reducing, separating and treating the different wastewater flows or recovering resources. Opportunities which are aligned with Integrated Resource Management and the fifth water paradigm should also be investigated. Critique 5 | The Operation & Maintenance costs associated with centralized infrastructure is high and should be avoided if possible. All scenarios are expected to have high O&M costs as well. High O&M costs are another issue associated with centralized infrastructure. For example, even the maintenance of the Colrain Village public water supply (PWS) has proven to be expensive and in end, the Colrain PWS is a fairly “localized” system. The PWS only transports water around 3,500 ft (~1,067 M) compared to the infrastructure which would be needed to transport wastewater close to 2.5 MI (~4 KM) to the Barnhardt WWTF as proposed and recommended in the Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Engineering Report. Critique 6 | A public/private partnership between the WWTF at Barnhardt and the Colrain Village Center is unlikely to achieve the security that is necessary for the Town of Colrain to proceed with the Implementation of Alternative 2.

“The cheapest solution might be to buy all the buildings in the town, tear them down and turn the area into a park, but this would be political suicide” - Anthony DeSimone (Wastewater Process Project Manager at Weston & Sampson, personal communication, August 10, 2015)

History shows that households in the Griswoldsville Village have not been able to depend on the neighboring private WWTF at Barnhardt to treat their wastewater. Currently, Barnhardt accepts and treats the wastewater from 21 residences in the Grisvoldsville Village at a minimal cost, however a number of different feasibility studies have been conducted - one in 1993, one in 1999 and one in 2001 - which have investigated other wastewater treatment alternatives for the Griswoldsville Village because previous owners of the WWTF have shown an unwillingness to continue treating the villageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wastewater (Weston & Sampson, 2014). While the current owner, Barnhardt, is willing to treat the wastewater from the Colrain Village Center, a $300,000 connection fee is required, and reaching an agreement which secures that if the company changes ownership or abandons their WWTF, that this would not jeopardize the ability of the Colrain Village Center and the Griswoldsville Village Center to continue using the WWTF to treat their wastewater. This could involve costly reconfigurations to the existing WWTF and operation and maintenance could become too much of a burden on the town. Concern as to whether an appropriate legal agreement could be reached with Weston & Sampson which would provide sufficient security to the Town of Colrain has been expressed (personal communication with Jack Cavolick, Town Selectman, August 23, 2015 and Kevin Fox, Town Coordinator, July 8, 2015).

IN SEARCH OF A DECENTRALIZED APPROACH There appears to a bias towards centralized treatment systems in the Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Engineering Report presented by Weston & Sampson and the report is lacking a thorough analysis of decentralized on-site and alternative/ innovative wastewater treatment solutions. In the United States centralized wastewater management infrastructure serves around 65% of the population while 26-28% of the population is served by decentralized management systems (Tchobanoglous & Leverenz, 2013). Current and mostly centralized water infrastructure is designed to use a lot of potable water and a lot of energy. In the United States water and wastewater infrastructure consumes 3-4% of the total electricity consumption (US EPA, 2016). Because of this, decentralized solutions will be investigated and solutions will be sought which have the potential to not only protect public and environmental health, but which are also in line with the fifth water paradigm and integrated resource management.

On-Site Systems

Centralized Management System

Centralized Wastewater Treatment

Figure 43 | Example of a Centralized Wastewater Management System Based on Alternative 2 from Weston & Sampson (2014) and Tchobanoglous & Leverenz (2013). Graphic: Author.

Cluster System

Hybrid Management System

Centralized Wastewater Treatment On-Site Systems Figure 44 | Example of A Decentralized & Hybrid Wastewater Management System Based on existing conditions and decentralization concepts from Tchobanoglous & Leverenz (2013). Graphic: Author.

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE| IN SEARCH OF A DECENTRALIZED APPROACH

DEFINING DECENTRALIZATION Before an analysis of decentralized alternatives can be completed, decentralized and centralized management approaches to wastewater treatment should be defined. Tchobanoglous & Leverenz (2013) define three types of wastewater management approaches as follows: Centralized wastewater management systems are systems that serve large areas with extensive pipes and pumping which transport wastewater to a central location for treatment. Alternative 2, which is recommended as part of the Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Engineering Report by Weston & Sampson is an example of a centralized wastewater management system (Figure 43).

the ability to easily eliminate stormwater inflow; and the fact that the implementation of source separation is easier in decentralized systems than in existing centralized systems. Another advantage is that while centralized systems have been built to depend on large amounts of wastewater, the aim of decentralization and source separation is to reduce fresh water inputs. Disadvantages | Disadvantages of decentralization include: the need for flow equalization, higher energy costs per unit of flow and higher spatial requirements for treatment (Tchobanoglous & Leverenz, 2013).

ON-SITE ALTERNATIVES TO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM PROBLEM

Decentralized wastewater management systems are defined as stand alone systems that treat wastewater from individual residences, residential clusters, isolated buildings, or small communities. A cluster system serves one or more households or properties but not a whole community. They have no pipe which connects them to the centralized WWTF.

An overview of different alternatives and technologies will be presented which directly address the problem of septic system functionality within the Colrain Village Center. Alternatives aim to prevent the failure of existing septic systems and to rehabilitate, replace or modify an existing system once it has failed in order to achieve Title 5 compliance.

Hybrid wastewater management systems involve the integration of decentralized, satellite and/or distributed centralized facilities. Considering that there is already a centralized WWTF in Colrain which serves a portion of the Griswoldsville Village, Figure 44 provides an example of a hybrid management system which incorporates existing facilities, but where the Colrain Village Center is served by decentralized on-site and cluster systems.

PREVENTING FAILURE: SEPTIC SYSTEM CARE AND MAINTENANCE

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Decentralization

The proper care and maintenance of septic systems is important because it can help protect public health and the environment in addition to saving homeowners money by reducing the need for expensive repairs and replacements. Septic system care and maintenance should involve annual inspections, care as to what goes down the drain and water conservation.

Advantages | Perhaps the most important advantage of decentralization is that it is typically the most cost-effective solution to wastewater in sparsely populated areas (NSFC, 2000). Furthermore, on-site and cluster systems offer greater flexibility than centralized systems (NSFC, 2000). They allow for the right systems to be used in the right context, instead of a one size fits all approach which is associated with centralization. Further advantages according to Tchobanoglous & Leverenz (2013) include the use of shallow, water tight infrastructure that can be installed, maintained and repaired easily;

Annual Inspections | In Massachusetts septic systems do not have to be inspected unless a property is sold. However, system inspections should be completed on an annual basis because they are a good way to reveal problems before they become serious. In general, a septic system inspection will check the level of solids accumulation in the tank, make sure there are no cracks in the system and check the drainfield for signs of failure among other things (National Environmental Services Center, 2004). Identifying cracks in the system is important, especially if there are cracks in the

tank walls, which can cause a system to become hydraulically overloaded in wet weather events or in the case of high groundwater. Keeping track of solid accumulation in the tank is important because if solids build up more than they should, the chance that they will move to and clog the drainfield increases (National Environmental Services Center, 2004). If this happens the drainfield may need to be replaced. This means that regular pumping of the septic tank is probably the most important thing that a homeowner can do. According to MASS DEP (2014a) pumping is usually required every one to three years, however pumping frequency is a function of use, so need should be determined on a case by case basis. For sites with limited space, where soil infiltration rates are low and where the possibility of high groundwater exist, regular inspection and maintenance becomes more important. Limit What Goes Down The Drain | The only other solid material which should go down the drain besides human waste is toilet paper. Everything else such as sanitary napkins, disposable diapers, cigarette butts, Q-tips and more can clog pipes and contribute to the build up of solids in the septic tank. In addition to these other household items, food scraps, coffee grounds, oil and grease should also be kept out of a septic tank and garbage disposals should be avoided. Garbage disposals require larger tanks and larger leachfields. According to Title 5, the area of a soil absorption system (SAS) needs to be 50% larger for those systems with a garbage disposal and the liquid capacity of the tank should be 200% of the design flow if a garbage disposal is part of the system (MASS DEP, 2014a). Toxins which are often present in household cleaning or maintenance products should also be kept out of the septic tank. Products which contain bleach, phosphate, zeolite, sodium, formaldehyde, methanol and chlorine in addition to other chemicals should be avoided (Ferguson, Dakers & Gunn, 2003). These chemicals, even small amounts, can destroy helpful bacteria in the septic tank and limit the functionality of the system (National Environmental Services Center, 2004). Water Conservation | Colrain residents have relatively little incentive to save water, but reducing water consumption can help extend the life of an existing septic system. Therefore, reducing the amount of water that is used and which needs to be treated can be used as a means to increase the lifespan of a system. Reducing SAS saturation through water

conservation efforts can help improve the quality of the soil and increase its ability to treat septic system effluent (National Environmental Services Center, 2004). Water conservation can also become effective when drainfield soils have low permeability because it reduce effluent volumes to quantities which remain below the absorption capacity of the soil (US EPA, 1996). The benefits of water conservation can be achieved by changing personal habits such as taking shorter showers, by repairing leaks and/or by installing or using water conserving technologies/components. Figure 63 provides an overview of some of the different household fixtures (toilets, shower heads, faucets and washing machines) and compares the range or water usage for conventional fixtures versus the water usage of alternative and water saving technologies and/or components. For instance, front loading washing machines conserve large amounts of water compared to their top loading counterparts. Aerated faucets and shower heads can also conserve significant amounts of water. Water saving and source separating toilets can also save a good deal of water.

DEALING WITH SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURE: ON-SITE ALTERNATIVES Even if a septic system is properly maintained, it could still fail for a number of different reasons. In the case of Colrain, four septic systems are considered to have failed. These homeowners have two years to rehabilitate, repair or replace the system (MASS DEP, 2014a). According to US EPA (1996) homeowners can deal with failing systems by: rehabilitating the septic system, expanding or adding to the existing system or abandoning the existing system and replacing it with an alternative system. Upon remediation, many existing systems would not be able to requirements of Title 5, especially if they were built before Title 5 came into effect, which is the case for the majority of systems located within the Colrain Village Center. In this case, homeowners may apply for a variance to Title 5, which may include a reduction in the size of the soil absorption system, a reduction in the necessary depth to groundwater and/or a reduction in the depth to naturally pervious soils. A variance allows homeowners the option to continue to use their property without making expensive repairs or modifications. If a variance is not granted, a variety of I/A technologies can be approved and implemented for remedial

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE| ON-SITE ALTERNATIVES TO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM PROBLEM

WATER SAVING FIXTURES 1 WATER CONSERVATION RETROFIT PROGRAM

TOILETS

SHOWER HEADS

ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT 2 ALTERNATING DRAIN FIELDS Working Trenches

Leachfield

Diversion Valve Box

Septic Tank

CONVENTIONAL 1.6-4.0 gpf (6-15 lpf)

CONVENTIONAL 4.0-6.1 gpm (15-23 lpm)

Resting Trenches

Plan View

ALTERNATIVE Dual Flush 0.1-1.6 gpf (0.5-6.0 lpf) Vacuum Toilets 0.1-0.4 gpf (0.5-1.5 lpf) Urine Separating 0.1-1.1 gpf (0.2-4.0 lpf)

3 MOUND SYSTEMS

ALTERNATIVE Aerated 4.0-6.1 gpm (6-10 lpm)

WASHING MACHINES

Sand Fill

Dosing Chamber

Septic Tank

Pump

Composting Toilets 0.0-0.03 (0.0-0.1 lpf) Waterless Urinals 0.0 (0.0 lpf)

Section View

CONVENTIONAL

4 MEDIA FILTERS

Top Loading 31.7-50.2 gpl (120- 190 lpl)

SINK FAUCETS

Filter Media Septic Tank

Pump

Outflow

CONVENTIONAL

Dosing Chamber

4.0-6.1 gpm (15-23 lpm)

Section View (Single Pass System) 5 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

ALTERNATIVE Aerated 0.5-1.6 gpl (2-6 lpl)

ALTERNATIVE

Front Loading 14.5-23.8 gpl (55-90 lpl) Filter Media

gpm = gallons per minute lpm = liters per minute gpf = gallons per flush gpl = liters per flush gpl = gallons per load lpl = liters per load

Figure 45 | Water Conservation (Option 1) Based on Ferguson, Dakers & Gunn (2003) and US EPA (1996). Graphic: Author.

Septic Tank

Outflow

Section View - Horizontal Flow Bed

Figure 46 | Alternative Treatment (Options 2-5) Based on US EPA (1999) and US EPA (1992). Graphic: Author.

SOURCE SEPARATION

6 DUAL SYSTEMS (Blackwater & Greywater)

Soil Absorption System (SAS) (50% Size Reduction) Septic Tank

Compost or Holding Tank

Section View

7 TRIPLE SYSTEMS (Blackwater, Greywater & Yellow Water)

Urine Holding Tank Compost or Holding Tank

Soil Absorption System (SAS) (50% Size Reduction) Septic Tank

Section View

Figure 47 | Source Separation (Options 6-7) Based on US EPA (1999), US EPA (1992) , MASS DEP (2014a) and Larsen, Udert, & Lienert (2013). Graphic: Author.

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE| ON-SITE ALTERNATIVES TO THE SEPTIC SYSTEM PROBLEM

use if the technologies have received a General Use Certification, Provisional Use Approval or a Piloting Approval (MASS DEP, 2014a). A non-exhaustive overview of different options which could be applied at properties with failing septic system follows. Options 1-5 use a septic tank for primary treatment whereas options 6 and 7 involve source separation and where the septic tank is used for the primary treatment of greywater instead of blackwater. Options 2-5 show options for the secondary treatment of septic tank effluent. Options 4-5 allow for effluent to undergo tertiary treatment such as disinfection by chlorination, UV or ozone so that the effluent could be reused or discharged on the surface. Activated sludge (aerobic) systems, which include â&#x20AC;&#x153;packageâ&#x20AC;? plants and sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) have not been included in this analysis because of the level of professional maintenance that is required and because of high energy needs of such systems. These different options are depicted in Figure 45, Figure 46 and Figure 47 and described in the following.

Water Conservation Option 1 | Water Conservation Retrofit Program Just as water conservation can serve as a means to prevent system failure, a water conservation retrofit program which involves installing low flow fixtures (Figure 63) can potentially reduce wastewater flows by as much as 50% (US EPA, 1996). The cost of water conservation is usually less than replacing a SAS (US EPA, 1996).

Alternative Treatment Option 2 | Alternating Drain Fields If the existing drainfield becomes clogged, an alternative drainfield can be added to the system. The addition of a diversion box and valve allows the existing drainfield to rest while a new drainfield is used. This allows the existing drainfield to rest and rejuvenate itself which according to US EPA (1996) can take 9 to 12 months. The existing drainfield can later be used again as an alternative drainfield. This is only an option if there is additional space available. If not, the entire drainfield will need to be replaced. Option 3 | Mound Systems Mound Systems are appropriate where high groundwater exists, in areas with shallow bedrock and where soils have slow permeability (US EPA, 1999). A pump forces the septic tank effluent up to an elevated absorption area where it then passes through sand and gravel before being absorbed into the ground. Mound 51

systems require energy to run the pump. Option 4 | Media Filters There are two main types of media filters: open (single pass) intermittent filters and recirculating filters. Recirculating filters require less space but need more energy because of pumping. Sand is the most common and oldest type of media, but alternative granular media such as crushed glass have been used for single pass filters and other absorbent media such as peat, open cell foam and textile have been used in recirculating filters. Absorbent media is used as a substitute to granular media such as sand to contribute to the more efficient movement of gases and water and therefore typically require less space (Joubert et. al., 2004). Single pass filters are advantageous when it comes to pathogen removal, while recirculating filters are advantageous when it comes to removing nitrogen (Joubert et. al., 2004). A single pass sand filter is shown in Figure 46. Media filters can be used where an existing system is biologically overloaded and where no additional absorption area is available, which is typical of restaurant wastewater. In this case they would be located between primary treatment and the drainfield. They can also be used to produce a high quality effluent which can be further disinfected (by UV etc.) and used as part of a reuse scenario, such as toilet flushing or outflow can be used for irrigation or surface discharge. Bottomless sand filters can also be used as a system drainfield after another type of recirculating media filter. These systems can either be raised or at ground level and are often used as an alternative to mound or fill systems in locations with high groundwater. A benefit of sand filters is that they can cope with fluctuation in wastewater loads (Ferguson, Dakers & Gunn, 2003). Therefore, media filters can be used on sites with high groundwater, where there is limited space, on sites with low soil permeability, where systems are biologically overloaded or where wastewater quantities fluctuate a great deal. Option 5 | Constructed Wetlands Constructed wetlands are also similar to sand filters and mound systems, however the main difference is that they incorporate planted filter media. There are two main types of constructed wetlands: horizontal flow and vertical flow. Effluent flows horizontally by gravity through a horizontal flow wetland whereas effluent is pumped intermittently to the surface of vertical flow wetland. Constructed wetlands are appropriate where soils are not suitable for

absorption and when combined with further disinfection, additional options exist for outflow discharge such as irrigation, surface discharge and reuse in toilet flushing, just as is the case for sand filters.

Source Separation Dual and triple systems involve the concept of source separation. Goals of source separation include reducing energy inputs for treatment and transport while increasing outputs by capturing energy, producing organic matter, recovering energy, nutrients and heat and producing fuel (Novotny et. al., 2010). It is believed that source separation can help address the impacts of population growth, climate change, changing water use patterns, water shortages and the need to recover and utilize the energy and nutrients present in wastewater (Tchobanoglous & Leverenz, 2013). Option 6 | Dual Systems (Greywater and Blackwater) The most successful application of source separation involves dual systems i.e. the separation and treatment of blackwater and greywater streams. Typically dual systems include composting toilets or low-flush toilets such as dual flush or vacuum toilets which reduce the quantity of blackwater generated. Blackwater is then collected in a watertight holding tank or in the case of a composting toilet a composting chamber. If composted, the compost can be returned to the soil after proper treatment or reduced blackwater flows accumulate in a holding tank which can then be hauled away when full or it could be used to generate biogas and heat. If blackwater is separated, greywater can continue to be sent to the septic tank or another approved filter system for treatment. If this is done, a 50% reduction in the size of the soil absorption system which is required by a combined wastewater treatment system in Massachusetts can be achieved (MASS DEP, 2014a). However, another possible alternative is that blackwater continues to be sent and treated in the septic tank and greywater streams are separated and treated with an appropriate system. A portion of the greywater stream could then be used for irrigation and toilet flushing. If it is used for toilet flushing disinfection is required. The reuse and/or separation of greywater becomes an advantage where water shortages exist or where the disposal area is limited. Option 7 | Triple Systems (Blackwater, Greywater and Yellow Water)

Triple systems separate yellow water, blackwater and greywater. These systems are far less common that dual systems, especially in the United States. They involve urine separating fixtures such as waterless urinals, urine diverting dry toilets and/or urine separating flush toilets. The benefits of urine separation include its potential to remove large percentages of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium from from the wastewater stream, possibly reducing the complexity and requirements of treatment. Larsen & Gujer (1996) state that urine separation can eliminate the need for nitrification and denitrification and it can allow for higher loading rates for biological treatment and reduced oxygen and energy requirements. If separated, nutrients could be extracted or urine could be applied directly as a fertilizer for non-food crops. For example, it has been successfully used as a fertilizer for hayfields.

SCALING UP TO CLUSTER SYSTEMS The aforementioned technologies and alternatives can also be used as part of a cluster system. The advantage of a shared/cluster system is that only one disposal area is needed and alternative systems may be cheaper if the system is shared instead of each property managing their own system (EEA, n.d.). The disadvantage includes the fact that a more elaborate management system for shared systems is needed. Title 5 outlines the specific legal and institutional requirements of shared systems. If cluster systems are implemented, the same technologies and alternatives which have been presented can be designed to treat the larger wastewater flows of shared/ cluster systems. However, different collection alternatives exist.

An Overview of Collection Alternatives Different collection options include simplified sewers, solids-free sewers, vacuum sewers and two types of pressure sewers: a grinder pump (GP) and septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system. Option 1 and Option 2 are variations of conventional gravity sewers which are typically placed under roads, located further below the surface than other sewers to maintain gravity pressure especially in flat areas and may include pumps when necessary.

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE | SCALING UP TO CLUSTER SYSTEMS

COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES 1 Simplified Sewer

Inspection Chambers Wit

ty ravi hG

Septic Tank

Option 1 | Simplified Sewers (Gravity) In concept, a simplified sewer is similar to conventional gravity sewers, but they cost less, do not require on-site pre-treatment units such as septic tanks, and use smaller diameter pipes that are located at a shallower depth and at a flatter gradient (Tilley et. al., 2014). They are appropriate for sites with high groundwater and their depth depends on the amount of traffic above them (if placed under roads), but when placed under sidewalks or other areas ~16-26 in (40-65 cm) depths are common. They require a minimum peak flow of 1.5 L/sec or at least 60 LPD/person to function and an inspection chamber (clean out) at junction points. They are followed by secondary treatment. Option 2 | Solids-Free Sewer (Variable Slope)

2 Solids-Free Sewer

A Solids-Free Sewer is similar in concept to a simplified sewer, but they do not have to be selfcleansing, are preceded by pre-treatment which is typically a septic tank and can have negative slopes if the downstream end of the sewer is lower than the upstream end (Tilley et. al., 2014). Septic Tank

le iab Var

SL o

Small Diameter Gravity Sewer

Septic Tank

Septic Tank Effluent Pump

3 Pressure Sewers

Septic Tank

ty ravi st G n i a Ag

Septic Tank Effluent Pump

Option 3 | Small Diameter Pressure Sewers A pump is needed to force the effluent from the septic tank to a conventional gravity sewer or to a community treatment cluster. There are two types of pressure sewers. One is a septic tank effluent pump (STEP) and the other is a Grinder Pump (GP). The pump of a STEP system can be integrated into the septic tank or separate. A GP ll instead of a septic tank and systemSeptic can be used nhi Dow Tank consists of a tank, a grinder pump and an alarm. When the tank is full, the alarm goes off and Gravity Sewer then theSmall GPDiameter grinds the material in the tank and pumps it to the community treatment cluster. In both cases, the pressure sewer is usually located near the surface, making it easier to install and reducing costs. However pumps require energy. Option 4 | Vacuum Sewers

4 Vacuum Sewers

Vacuum Station

Collection Chambers (with vacuum/gravity value)

Figure 48 | Collection Alternatives For Cluster Systems Source: Based on US EPA (1992) and Tilley et. al. (2014). Graphic: Author.

Vacuum Sewers can be used with traditional gravity lines which collect both greywater and blackwater using low-flush toilets or they can be used for dual systems where greywater and blackwater are collected and treated separately. Blackwater quantities can be minimized by incorporation of vacuum toilets. In either case, wastewater is collected in a vacuum valve unit (Collection Chamber) and then conveyed to a central collection chamber using negative air pressure to move the sewage. A central source of power is needed to maintain vacuum

pressurization. The wastewater is then pumped for further treatment.

WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS The application of source separation considers the many stages and different streams of wastewater which can be combined and separated in different ways, using different user interfaces and collection/storage/conveyance systems. There are also a number of different treatment technologies which can be used. Yet, before going further, a deeper understanding of the basic streams, quantities and characteristics of wastewater is needed.

WASTEWATER STREAMS AND QUANTITIES The United States | The different sources, streams, categories and quantities of indoor and outdoor household water consumption in the United States are presented in Figure 49. Per capita daily consumption of household water in the United States is around 170 GPD (~644 LPD), one of the highest daily consumption values in the world. The largest quantity of water used by households is for outdoor irrigation - greater than all the different indoor sources and streams combined. Indoor wastewater consists of two different streams - greywater and blackwater. Blackwater composes around a 29% of all wastewater flows and greywater composes the remaining 71% percent. The blackwater steam is mainly composed of brownwater (flushing water containing faeces and toilet paper) while yellow water (urine) composes a mere 1% of the entire wastewater stream. Greywater, composes the largest wastewater stream and it is generated from a variety of different sources including sinks, washing machines and showers. The largest greywater contributors include the bathtub/ shower and the washing machine. There are also two different streams of greywater - dark greywater and light greywater.

estimated at 38 GPD/Person (~144 LPD/Person) and outdoor water consumption is estimated at 9 GPD/Person (~34 LPD/Person). This estimate is based on monthly water pump records for the Colrain Village Center PWS for 2015 (Figure 50) and an estimate of household occupancy for those properties with public water. Indoor water use was estimated by using the November water useage rate for each month throughout the year, assuming that no water is needed or used for irrigation in November. Water use beyond the quantity consumed in November is considered outdoor irrigation water. Peak water use in July is likely due to increased outdoor irrigation whereas the peak in January may be attributed to water losses associated with a leak which may have been caused by a water break due to freezing pipes (Dorothy Conway, personal communication, March 3, 2016). These results are somewhat surprising as Colrain inhabitants have no economic incentive to conserve water. Inhabitants with public water pay a basic service fee in addition to a Fire District Tax which is based on the value of one’s property and there are no water meters installed at each property which record water use (personal communication, Walter Donelson, December 15, 2015). It is believed that Colrain’s outdoor water consumption is far less than the national average because of Colrain’s climate, where rainfall is consistent throughout the year reducing the need for landscape irrigation, but reasons why Colrain’s indoor water consumption is significantly below the national average are less conclusive. It has been confirmed that figures for 2015 are representative of water consumption of prior years (personal communication, Dorothy Conway, April 8, 2016). While this consumption is much lower than the national average, it is comparable to the average water consumption values for 10 other countries around the world (Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Israel, Malta, Netherlands, Oman, Portugal, Switzerland and the UK) whose average water consumption is ~39 gallons/person/day (148 liters/person/day) (Friedler, Butler & Alfiya, 2013). This is one gallon more per day than Colrain’s consumption value. However, because of this lower than average consumption, additional measurements would be needed to support and confirm these values.

The Colrain Village Center | Average Household water consumption for the Colrain Village Center is estimated at 47 GPD/Person (~178 LPD/Person), which is almost four times less than the national average (Figure 50). Indoor water useage is 54

UNITED STATES Residential Wastewater Sources, Streams And Quantities OUTDOOR

INDOOR

Washing Machine

(11%*)

Dish Washer (4%)

Kitchen Sink (11%*)

Wash Basin

Bathtub & Shower

Brownwater (Faeces 0.1%) Yellow Water (1%)

Irrigation Water

21%

24%

28%

Light Dark

29%

71% Greywater

Blackwater

(~382 LPD / Person)

t e wa as W

101 GDP / Person

69 GDP / Person (~261 LPD / Person)

r te

Figure 49 | Household Wastewater Sources, Streams & Quantity Per Person Per Day in the United States Source: Based on Tchobanoglous & Leverenz (2013) and Mayer et. al. (1999). Notes: The percentage of water lost to leaks (9.5%) and other domestic uses (1.6%) is distributed equally across the sources.*The total water from these sources was divided in half to get 11% each, but this may not represent the distribution in reality. Graphic: Author.

COLRAIN Residential Wastewater Sources, Streams And Quantities Estimate OUTDOOR

INDOOR

Washing Machine

(11%*)

Dish Washer (4%)

Kitchen Sink (11%*)

Wash Basin

Bathtub & Shower

(24%)

(21%)

Brownwater (Faeces 0.1%) Yellow Water (1%)

Light Dark

71%

29%

Blackwater

Greywater

Irrigation Water

28%

tewa as W

38 GDP / Person (~144 LPD / Person)

r te

9 GDP / Person (~34 LPD / Person)

Figure 50 | Household Wastewater Sources, Streams & Quantity Per Person Per Day in Colrain (Estimate) Source: Based on water data of the Colrain Fire District #1 PWS and household occupancy. The percent distribution is based on Figure 49. Notes: The percentage of water lost to leaks and other domestic uses is included. For further calculation details see Table 11 and Table 12 on p. 122 in the Appendix. Graphic: Author.

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE | WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

WASTEWATER COMPOSITION According to Johansson et. al. (2001), while urine composes a mere 1% of the total wastewater stream, urine contains around 80% of the nitrogen (N), a little less than 60% of the phosphorous (P) and a little more than 60% of the potassium (K) (Figure 49). These results are similar to those of Larsen & Gujer (1996) who found that urine contains 80% of the total nitrogen, 50% of the total phosphorous and 75% of the nitrogen load of European wastewater. While Nitrogen, Phosphourous, Potassium (NPK) are the three main macronutrients that are needed for plant growth and found in fertilizers, they need to be removed from wastewater so they do not pollute waters and cause eutrophication. The large percentages of nutrients which are present in urine highlights the potential of urine separation as a means to reduce the overall nutrient load of wastewater in addition to the highlighting its potential for nutrient recovery. While faeces compose the smallest volume of blackwater (even less than urine), faeces are the main source of pathogens and therefore proper treatment is required (Otterpohl, Wendland & Bettendorf, 2015). Furthermore, blackwater contributes most of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and large portions of Biological Oxygen

CONTENTS OF WASTEWATER 100

160 | 606

Indoor

80 | 303

40 | 151

CONTENT (%)

120 | 454

Greywater Faeces Yellow Water (Urine)

Outdoor

COD

BOD

TSS

Potassium

Phosphorous

MONTH

0 Nitrogen

DEC

NOV

SEP

OCT

JUL

AUG

JUN

APR

MAY

MAR

JAN

Figure 52 | Colrain Monthly Water Usage Source: This data is based on actual water pump records for the Colrain VIllage Center PWS system (Fire District #1 - Well #2) provided by Dorothy Conway, PWS Clerk. Indoor and outdoor water use is estimated considering that in November it is not likely that irrigation water is needed. Graphic: Author.

Understanding the basic composition and

200 | 757

FEB

WATER USE 2015 (GALLONS | LITERS - in1,000S)

COLRAIN MONTHLY WATER USE 2015

Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), at 57%, 48% and 42% respectively (Friedler, Butler & Alfiya, 2013). TSS refers to the amount of insoluble solids floating and suspended in wastewater which can clog pipes, pumps and filters, and COD and BOD represent the biodegradability of a wastewater (Morel & Diener, 2006). While blackwater contributes a significant share of TSS, BOD and COD, greywater also contributes significant quantities as well and thus greywater also needs to undergo proper treatment before being released back into the environment. However, it should be noted that not all greywater streams have the same pollutant loads. Dark greywater streams which includes greywater from the kitchen sink, the washing machine and the dishwasher, have higher pollutant loads than light greywater (Friedler, Butler & Alfiya, 2013). According to Morel & Diener (2006), relatively high quantities of TSS which are found in greywater come from the non-biodegradable fibres from clothing and contributions from powdered detergents and soaps from kitchen and laundry water. The BOD and COD loads generally depend on the amount of water used and the type of detergents, soaps, oils and fats used in different households (Morel & Diener, 2006). As a general rule, when water use is low, the BOD and COD will be higher than it would be if water use is high (Morel & Diener, 2006). The COD/BOD ratio is also used as a good indicator of biodegradability.

Figure 51 | Contents Of Wastewater Sources: Johansson et. al. (2001) and Friedler, Butler & Alfiya (2013). Graphic: Author.

characteristics of the different wastewater streams is important when considering the feasibility of source separation in the context of the Colrain Village Center. However, it should be noted that these percentages are only estimates and domestic wastewater flows and characteristics vary from country to county, from household to household, and from person to person. Wastewater composition also depends on the characteristics and functioning of the user interface or appliance within a household and on the habits and culture of those who use the interface. Also, it is important to consider that as user interfaces (appliances/technologies) become more water efficient, the amount, quality and quantity of wastewater steams will change resulting in lower water consumption on the one hand, but more concentrated wastewater on the other hand.

be different as people are generally home more and produce more varied wastewater flow patterns. These fluctuations need to be considered because they may require the use of equalization tanks for most onsite systems in order to regulate quantities, qualities and temperatures for wastewater reuse (Friedler, Butler & Alfiya, 2013).

WASTEWATER FLUCTUATIONS Wastewater flow, especially at the level of an individual household, can vary significantly from day to day, month to month, household to household and from culture to culture. An example of household weekday water use patterns in England is shown in Figure 53. There is a morning peak between 6:00 and 10:00 and then two evening peaks between 19:00 and 23:00. On the weekend, the flow pattern would

WASTEWATER FLUCTUATIONS

DISCHARGE (L/PERSON/MIN)

0.25

Combined Wastewater Streams

0.2

0.15

0.10

0.05

0 00:00

03:00

06:00

09:00

12:00

15:00

18:00

21:00

24:00

TIME (h)

Figure 53 | Weekday Domestic Wastewater Flow Patterns Sources: Reproduction of Friedler, Butler & Alfiya (2013). Graphic: Author.

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE | WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

4 APPLYING THE

ALTERNATIVES

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES

THE POTENTIAL FOR SOURCE SEPARATION Different projects, concepts and potentials of source separation will be discussed. Dual systems which involve the separation of blackwater and greywater will be explored by taking a closer look at blackwater and its potential to produce biogas and compost. The concept of converting blackwater to biogas was attempted at the ecological settlement, Flintenbreite, Lübeck, so this project will be presented in more detail. The potential for implementing composting toilets will also be investigated as will triple systems which involve separating urine and using it as a fertilizer.

DUAL SYSTEM BLACKWATER TO ENERGY The ecological housing estate, Flintenbreite, is located to the North of Lübeck, Germany. It began as a demonstration project to showcase innovations in sustainable and community development and was designed to include 117 apartments, housing 350-380 inhabitants (OtterWasser GmbH, 2009). The project is best known for its attempts and innovations in sustainable water and wastewater management. All stormwater is collected and infiltrated onsite using infiltration swales and a dual system is installed for greywater and blackwater collection and treatment. The original intention was to produce energy and fertilizer from the blackwater stream. The blackwater system consists of vacuum Figure 54 | Images of Flintenbreite Lübeck (Left) Top: the ecological housing estate. Middle left: a vertical constructed wetland for greywater treatment. Middle right: pedestrian household entry way. Bottom left: the central vacuum station for blackwater collection. Bottom middle: the mixing and hygienisation unit for blackwater treatment and biogas production. Bottom right: the heat and power station. Photos: Author (2015)

toilets which use ~0.18-0.26 gpf (0.7-1.0 lpf) and a central vacuum station (OtterWasser GmbH, 2009). The use of vacuum technology allows for significant reductions in potable water use and reduces the dilution of blackwater. The resulting flow from the vacuum toilets is around ~1.3 g/ cap/day (5 l/cap/day) (Wendland, Deegener, Behrendt, Toshev, & Otterpohl, 2007). The blackwater was to be combined with ground up food waste collected from the households, estimated at ~19 gal/cap/year (73 liters/cap/year) and the mixture would then be anaerobically digested in a Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) (Wendland, 2008). Household food waste was included in the concept because it improves the performance of the anaerobic treatment in terms of COD removal and methane yield (Wendland et. al., 2007). The system was designed to produce heat and power in a combined heat and power station and the digestate from the anaerobic digestion process was to be used as a fertilizer in local agriculture. It was estimated that this system would produce 100 kWh/person per year of biogas and offset 60 kWh/person per year in fertilizer production (Otterpohl, Albold, & Oldenburg, 1998). However, these gains were never achieved due to construction delays, which meant that there was never enough blackwater to run the biogas facility (personal communication, Flintenbreite Operation and Maintenance Administrator Torsten Bettendorf, September 10, 2015). Torsten Bettendorf also stated that the technology which has been installed would no longer meet today’s safety standards and the mechanical components have likely suffered from disuse, making it unrealistic that the biogas system could begin operation when the development is fully occupied, which is expected to occur in the near future. Electricity Balance | While the concept of turning waste into energy and nutrient fertilizer is an attractive one, a recent study has estimated

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES | THE POTENTIAL FOR SOURCE SEPARATION

that the application of the system described at Flintenbreite, Lübeck would achieve an negative electricity balance of 5 kWh/cap/year, and even with the use of advanced vacuum toilet technology where toilets use only ~0.07 gpf (0.25 lpf) (which improves the electricity and heat generation capacity of the system) an electricity balance of only 15 kWh could be

HOUSEHOLD DEMAND VERSUS BIOGAS HEAT & ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION POTENTIAL MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION

BEST CASE ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION

PERCENT ELECTRICITY COVERAGE

2,809 kWh/cap/year

15 kWh/cap/year

0.5%

MASSACHUSETTS HEAT CONSUMPTION

BEST CASE HEAT PRODUCTION

PERCENT HEAT COVERAGE

7,709 kWh/cap/year

60 kWh/cap/year

3.5%

Figure 56 | Household Demand Versus Biogas Heat & Electricity Production Potential Source: Based on Wendland (2008) and EIA (2009)

FLINTENBREITE, LÜBECK VACUUM TECHNOLOGY (~0.18-0.26 gpf or 0.7-1.0 lpf)

ADVANCED VACUUM TECHNOLOGY (~0.07 gpf or 0.25 lpf)

Heat Electricity 80

ENERGY PRODUCTION (KWH/CAP/YEAR

40 20 0

-40

20 0

-40

LEVEL OF TREATMENT

Pasteurization @ ~167°F (75°C) & AD @~99°F (37°C)

-80

AD @ ~86°F (30°C)

-60

Pasteurization @ ~167°F (75°C) & AD @~99°F (37°C)

-60 -80

-20

AD @ ~86°F (30°C)

NERGY PRODUCTION (KWH/CAP/YEAR

Heat Electricity

LEVEL OF TREATMENT

Figure 55 | Energy & Heat Balance Of Anaerobic Digestion Using Different Vacuum Technologies Source: Wendland, 2008. Graphic: Author.

achieved (Wendland, 2008). Considering that Massachusetts households typically consume 6,967 kWh/year (EIA, 2009) and the average Massachusetts household size is 2.48 people/ household (US Census Bureau, 2010b), electricity consumption is around 2,809 kWh/cap/year. That means that electricity production from the advanced system would only meet 0.5% of the typical per capita yearly electricity demand in Massachusetts. However, while electricity gains are minimal, it must be noted that compared to a negative electricity balance of around 40 kWh/ cap/year, which is typical of conventional aerobic treatment systems (Wendland, 2008), the potential for a positive electricity balance, or a slightly negative one, is still a great improvement. Heat Balance | Variations in the heat balance range between around 20 kWh/cap/year using advanced vacuum technology, with pasteurization at ~ 167°F (75°C) and AD @ ~99°F (37°C) (which improves the potential for digestate reuse in agriculture) and a negative heat balance of close to -80 kWh/cap/year for a system like the one installed at Flintenbreite, Lübeck (Wendland, 2008). Without pasteurization (or acidification), the energy balance for heat ranges between slightly more than to 60 kWh/cap/year using advanced vacuum toilet technology and slightly more than 20 kWh/cap/ year for the system installed at Flintenbreite, Lübeck (Wendland, 2008). Again, considering the space heating demand per household in Massachusetts is 19,120 kWh/year (EIA, 2009) and an average household size of 2.48 people/ household (US Census Bureau, 2010b), space heating in Massachusetts is around 7,709 kWh/cap/year. Therefore, using the best case scenario, using advanced vacuum technology only approximately 3.5% of the Massachusetts per capita heat demand could be met per year. However, there are other factors which should also be considered before implementing a system such as the one installed at the Flintenbreite, Lübeck settlement. Ralf Otterpohl, one of the principal engineers involved in the design of the wastewater system at Flintenbreite, Lübeck and the Director of the Institute of Wastewater Management and Water Protection at the Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), no longer recommends biogas production from wastewater because such systems require a lot of infrastructure and on-going and complicated maintenance for only small gains in energy production (personal communication, September 7, 2015). Furthermore, Wendland (2008) states that the

Sustainable Development Goals Addressed at Flintenbreite, Lübeck 1

Thriving Lives and Livelihoods

Going beyond basic needs, this project contributes to thriving lives and livelihoods through intentions and experiments in “community” living and cooperation. Value is added through the use of ecological building materials, the addition of community and open spaces and shared parking facilities. 2

Sustainable Food

Going beyond basic nutritional needs, this project includes elements of sustainable food through the inclusion of landscape fruit trees. Food waste was also designed to be collected and used together with blackwater for the production of biogas (*however biogas production has not been achieved). 3

Sustainable Water

Image 7 | Solar Water Heating There are 1,292 ft2 (120 m2) of solar hot panels installed Photo: Author (2015)

Innovative concepts in sustainable water have been implemented. Greywater is treated by natural constructed wetlands, water is conserved through the implementation of vacuum toilets, and blackwater and food waste was to be collected to produce biogas (*not achieved). Stormwater is also treated and infiltrated on-site in a community swale within the center of the development. 4

Clean Energy

The most innovative clean energy concept included the production of biogas from food and blackwater waste, however other applications of clean energy include the addition of solar hot panels (1,292 ft2 | 120 m2)) and photovoltaic panels (538 ft2 | 50 m2) which supplement the electricity supply. A combined heat and power station also produces heat and electricity and buildings are designed to have low energy consumption. 5

Healthy and Productive Ecosystems

Image 8 |Open Space and Orchards There are 5.2 acres (2.1. hectares) of open space in the Settlement. Photo: Author (2015)

The project has conserved 5.2 acres (2.1 hectares) of open and natural space. Additionally, the treatment of greywater in a constructed wetland is a contributing natural element of the landscape. 6

Governance for Sustainable Societies

The project was developed as part of a demonstration project for sustainable technologies and as an ecological, economical, and social settlement which included concepts of co-habitation. Community members and institutions sought to achieve a wholistic and sustainable society.

Figure 57 | An Overview Of The Sustainable Development Goals Addressed By The Flintenbreite, Lübeck Settlement. Source: Compiled by Author, Based on OtterWasser GmbH (2009) and Griggs et. al (2013)

Image 9 |Rainwater/Stormwater Collection & Distribution After collection, the stormwater is infiltrated in the ground in a stormwater swale located in the center of the housing estate. Photo: Author (2015

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES | THE POTENTIAL FOR SOURCE SEPARATION

concept of vacuum technology and anaerobic digestion for settlements with less than 1,000 inhabitants would be too cost intensive in terms of needed investment. Therefore, even though the concept and idea of producing energy from wastewater is an appealing one, it has been discarded for consideration as a suitable solution for the Colrain Village Center. Yet, the concept for greywater treatment has been successful and should also be considered in the context of Colrain in the case separate blackwater and greywater streams are used. The Flintenbreite project produces around ~16 g/cap/day (60 l/cap/day) which is collected and treated separately in a vertical flow constructed wetland with (Wendland et. al., 2007), with a size of ~6.6. ft2 per person (2 m2 per person) (Otterpohl, Albold, & Oldenburg, 1998). Furthermore, the project serves as a positive example of sustainable development which incorporates, or at least touches upon, the six different sustainable development goals as outlined by Griggs et. al. (2013) (Figure 57). This wholistic approach goes beyond wastewater and integrates a variety of resources which add value to the settlement. It is a good example of how a variety of resources could be integrated into a development to address a broader range of sustainability goals. It is believed that the concept ecological settlements can also be utilized as a means to revitalize existing rural village centers such as the Colrain Village Center, converting them into attractive centers of community.

DUAL SYSTEM BLACKWATER TO COMPOST At the time the Colrain Village Center was built, outhouses were still the primary means of managing and treating blackwater. They are also one of the reasons why historic village centers were able to develop in such a compact manner and evidence of their use can still be found in the architecture of homes (Figure 88). Modern composting technology has replaced and improved the old concept of the outhouse and it could provide a solution for existing properties which have failing septic systems in addition to allowing for new construction and/ or building renovation to take place even when difficult site conditions exist. In Massachusetts, 63

installing a composting toilet, if combined with a septic tank and SAS for greywater treatment, allows for a reduction in the size of the SAS by 50%. Where existing septic systems do not exist, they can also be implemented in combination with alternative and approved systems for greywater treatment such as a constructed wetland as was utilized to treat greywater in the Flintenbreite, LĂźbeck settlement. As a sustainable sanitation technology, composting toilets are excellent. They use little to no water or energy and they produce a nutrient rich by-product at a lower cost than conventional technologies. Due to these characteristics, interest in the technology is growing, especially in regions where water is scarce, soil degradation is a problem and electricity is expensive. Their contribution to soil quality is also often underestimated, but in the larger context of sustainability it is equally as important as reducing fossil fuel use and/or water consumption. The reason why, is because soil erosion and a loss of soil fertility can happen slow enough not to be noticed, but at the same time it can happen fast enough that it has caused the literal collapse of civilizations and civilization is limited by the ability of our soils to produce the food and fodder it needs to sustain it (Montgomery, 2012). Yet, another benefit of improving the quality of soils by composting waste includes the fact that humus rich soils have the capacity to absorb and hold large amounts of water. This improves the resilience of agricultural crops in times of drought and increases the capacity of the soil to soak up water during long and intensive rain events. In the context of Colrain and the New England region, improving the water absorption capacity of soils and implementing stormwater retention and infiltration techniques has the potential to help reduce the amount of flooding and damage which can be caused during large storm events, such as what occurred during Hurricane Irene. As a testament to the sustainability of compost systems, Ralf Otterpohl, has also shifted away from the idea of producing energy from wastewater to the production of nutrient rich compost. He stated that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;the mass balances are clear, we should be feeding the soil, not depleting humusâ&#x20AC;? (personal communication, September 7, 2015). His recent research focuses on Terra Preta Sanitation (TPS) and the role rural regions play in caring for and building soil. Terra

Preta Sanitation is an adaptation of the ancient Amazonian method of producing Terra Preta do Indio (black nutrient rich soil) by combining biowaste, human waste and charcoal together (De Gisi, Petta & Wendland, 2014). TPS involves urine diversion, the addition of a charcoal mixture and lactic acid fermentation which is followed by vermicomposting, producing no gas or odors (De Gisi, Petta & Wendland, 2014). This process uses no water and does not require ventilation or external energy. While it has been shown that the energy production from wastewater is not that efficient, bioenergy from woody materials is considered to make more sense (Otterpohl, Wendland

& Bettendorf, 2015). Forest land and wood is abundant in Colrain and it is widely used to heat homes in the region. Woodgas stoves as well as woodgas devices which co-produce power, heat/ cooling can use wood in a highly efficient way and they can serve to produce charcoal which is a component of Terra Preta production (Otterpohl, Wendland & Bettendorf, 2015). Herein lies a new connection between wastewater, energy and soil and with that, a new opportunity for integrating resource management within the Colrain Village Center. There are a number of different processes and technologies which produce biochar, a component of Terra Preta production, and

Figure 58 |Example Of The Clivus Multrum Composting System Source: http://www.clivusne.com/science-and-technology.php

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES | THE POTENTIAL FOR SOURCE SEPARATION

whose feedstock is wood. For instance the BCBiochar Unit uses pyrolysis to produce biochar, heat (district water heating) and electricity (BlackCarbon, n.d.). The production of biochar could heat water within the village, produce biochar which could be used to compost blackwater from homes and simultaneously produce electricity. The Terra Preta compost could then be applied to non-food crops with the benefit of increasing soil fertility and the water absorption capacity of soils.

agriculture initiatives within the Colrain Village Center. Furthermore, it would serve to keep organic green food waste out of septic systems, which can extend their life and reduce their size.

Once again, the implementation of such a system has many attractive benefits, but it may go beyond the immediate needs and financial and organizational capacity of the Colrain Village Center and further research, development and supervision would be needed to implement a composting system which is based on the concept of Terra Preta. However, the concept and implementation of composting could still prove to be an interesting option for some of the properties within the Colrain Village Center and there are a number of composting toilets which are available on the market and could be installed and serve the needs of existing and future properties, ranging from households to restaurants and public facilities. For example, Clivus New England has a foam flush composting toilet which meets national and state standards and which have contributed to earning Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification for a number of projects in the New England region, saving water and overcoming difficult site restrictions. The foam flush toilet looks similar to and offer functions similar to a conventional flush toilet, but it only uses six ounces of water per use and needs a 4 IN (~10 CM) pipe (Clivus Multrum Inc., 2010). This toilet is easier in mulit-story buildings.

As mentioned previously, the largest quantities of nutrients (NPK) which are found in wastewater are found in urine. Therefore, urine separation has the potential to simplify the treatment process and the nutrients in urine are readily available to plants, which make it suitable for easy application as a fertilizer (Jonsson & Vinneras, 2013). While little information has been found with regards to the importance of reducing Potassium from the wastewater stream, there are a number of reasons why reducing the nitrogen and phosphorous content is important.

The application of composting toilets should be considered on a case by case basis within the Colrain Village Center. Yet, it must be acknowledged that despite the many benefits of composting toilet technology, public acceptance may still present a problem and will likely limit their application. However, this analysis has brought to light another opportunity for the partial application of Terra Preta on a much smaller scale which could involve co-composting charcoal, a byproduct from wood burning stoves which are already installed and used to heat many of the homes within the Colrain Village Center, with household food waste whose product could be applied to food-crops and community supported 65

TRIPLE SYSTEM YELLOW WATER TO FERTILIZER

Nitrogen management is important because according to Erisman & Larsen (2013) nitrogen losses occur at high rates due to the fact that nitrogen is relatively inefficient. Therefore, careful management of nitrogen as it is applied to agriculture and limiting the quantities found in wastewater before it is released back into the environment is needed. Larsen & Gujer (1996) state that considering the high nitrogen content of urine, its separation can eliminate the need for nitrification and denitrification. This could prove to be important for Colrain, as urine separation could help forgo the requirement of cost intensive post treatment of wastewater. Further benefits include higher loading rates for biological treatment and reduced oxygen and energy requirements (Larsen & Gujer, 1996). Phosphorous is relevant because the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s supply of phosphorous is limited and without it, plants do not grow. Phosphorous is also becoming more difficult to extract and peak phosphorous is expected to occur by 2033, after which demand for phosphorous is expected to increase while the annual supply decreases (Cordell et al., 2009). Experience has also shown us that when the supply of phosphorous is limited, prices can skyrocket. This is what happened in 2008, when the price for phosphorous increased by 800% (Cordell, 2013). For these reasons, the separation and use of

Figure 59 | Urine Separation Concept From Toilet To Field Source: Johansson et. al. (2001)

urine as a fertilizer should be considered as part of a sustainable and decentralized approach to wastewater management. The separation of urine is also fairly simple and can be achieved by a variety of urine separating technologies which typically include toilets which have a front bowl for urine and a back bowl for faeces and toilet paper. Technologies include urine diverting dry toilets (urine diverting composting toilets), urine separating flush toilets and for men, urinals with and without flush water. These technologies separate the urine stream and collect it in a holding tank. The urine should then be stored to sanitize it, which occurs because the nitrogen in urine is excreted as urea which is rapidly degraded to ammonia, acting as a sanitizing agent (Jonsson & Vinneras, 2013). After storage, it can be transported and stored once again until it is applied as a liquid fertilizer (Figure 59). The report, Urine Separation - Closing the Nutrient Cycle by Johansson et. al. (2001) is a good resource offering more information about such an application. In the context of Colrain, urine could be applied directly as a fertilizer to neighboring hay fields as has been done in Brattelboro, Vermont as part of a research project directed by the Rich Earth Institute (See interview summary with Rich Earth Institute Founder | Kim Nace, p. 106). According to Kim Nace, research has found that 1,000 gallons of urine can fertilize one acre of hay with good results (personal communication, Kim Nace, August 12, 2015). It also appears that there is a need for additional fertilizer in Colrain. Based on personal communication with dairy farmer, Robert Purrington (August 21, 2015), the manure that is produced on Woodslawn

Farm is not sufficient to fertilize all of his hay fields and conventional fertilizer is used to meet the remaining demand. This suggests that interest in urine fertilizer could be generated, but local farmer acceptance and interest would be needed. If interest could be generated, a possible cooperation between the Good Earth Institute and the Colrain Village Center could be established to guide the development and application of urine as a fertilizer in Colrain. However, just as public acceptance is considered to be a problem for the implementation of composting toilets, it is also a problem for urine separation. Not only do farmers have to accept the use of urine as a fertilizer, but the public has to accept urine separating (no-mix) toilets. While urine separating toilets are generally well accepted by users, those users with longer and more frequent use of no-mix toilets were more critical (Lienert, 2013). One of the biggest problems that still exist with no-mix toilet technology is blockages which occur in urineconducting pipes (Lienert, 2013). While Lienert (2013) states that this problem can be fixed by mechanical (steel brush removal) and chemical means, they still require more maintenance. Further drawbacks include the fact that in most cases they require more cleaning, and they require that people sit on the toilet (Lienert, 2013), which becomes important if used in public as opposed to private situations. Therefore, research indicates that while users are open to the idea of source separating technologies, the technology still needs to be improved to be able to compete with conventional technologies.

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES | THE POTENTIAL FOR SOURCE SEPARATION

THE POTENTIAL FOR ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT Due to what are considered to be limited possibilities for the application of source separation within the Colrain Village Center, possibilities concerning alternative technologies such as sand filters and constructed wetlands will also be investigated. These systems can be used in situations where a system is biologically overloaded or to reduce the size of the SAS when limited space is available. One of the benefits of these systems is that they can be up-scaled or down-scaled to treat various wastewater quantities making them suitable for on-site as well as cluster applications. They also do not require changing existing user interfaces within buildings or modifications to existing pipes. These systems are usually used as a form of secondary treatment, but they can also be used for tertiary treatment as needed (Figure 73). A diverse treatment train can be designed to suit different site and contextual needs.

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Figure 63 | Wastewater Treatment Train

MEDIA FILTERS The most common media filter is the sand filter and it is known for its long-term treatment performance, low levels of operation and maintenance, and overall robustness (Joubert et. al., 2004). They can be used as part of a cluster or for individual sites. They can deal with variations in wastewater flows and additionally, they can be designed with zones that can be phased in or out over time - offering greater flexibility. For properties within small town centers with limited 67

space and/or high groundwater such as is the case for properties within the Colrain Village Center, the following treatment train could serve as a solution, and it has been successful for a number of different sites in New England. It can serve both individual properties or a small cluster of properties.

Septic Tank/s

Recirculating Media Filter

Bottomless Sand Filter

Figure 60 | Typical Treatment Train For Sites With High Groundwater and/or Limited Space.

For more details please refer to Creative Community Design and Wastewater Management by Joubert et. al. (2004). This publication shows a number of different applications and combinations within small town centers which use sand filter and alternative technologies. Once a sand filter system goes beyond serving a few properties, prefabricated or prepackaged units may become cost effective. According to Joubert et. al. (2004), benefits of these units include quicker installation, easier transport, and higher quality control. Orencoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s AdvanTex Treatment System is an example of such a prepackaged unit, with an engineered textile media which is configured like a recirculating sand filter. This system has been applied in other small rural community centers such as Amesville, Ohio. The treatment train is as follows:

Septic Tank/s

AdvanTex Media Filter

UV Disinfection

Figure 61 | Typical Treatment Train For Sites With High Groundwater and/or Limited Space.

The system in Amesville was designed with septic tanks fitted with effluent filters for primary treatment, three Advantex Treatment Systems with 14 AX100 units for secondary treatment, and UV disinfection for tertiary treatment (Orenco Systems Inc., 2015). A similar system, using the AdvanTex unit or another prepackaged system could be applied within the Colrain Village Center to serve the renovation cluster and the new development cluster.

can be used separately or can be combined in a hybrid constructed wetland. Hybrid systems can achieve higher treatment efficiencies, especially regarding nitrogen and pathogens, but they can be more complicated to operate than non-hybrid systems (Hoffman et. al., 2011). Recent experiments with hybrid systems show positive treatment results for hybrid systems, but further experiments and protection of pipes from freezing (Vymazal & Kröpfelová, 2011). This is vital for their implementation in cold climates.

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

A constructed wetland treatment train which would be appropriate for the cold climate of Colrain (annual temperature of 45°F (7°C)) is shown in Figure 64. This system can also be upscaled to the level of a small community cluster. In such a scenario, constructed wetlands are combined with a biofilter, which is much like the media filters which were discussed previously. The system involves the following treatment train.

Wetlands are considered to be the “earth’s kidneys” because of their contributions to cleaning and purifying water around the world. Constructed wetlands are engineered systems which mimic their naturally occurring counterparts and are becoming a popular means to treat wastewater in rural areas - even in cold climates. One of the reasons they are becoming popular is because they achieve high performance in addition to requiring low maintenance (Jenssen et. al., 2005). However, there is another quality of constructed wetlands that goes beyond performance and maintenance which stands out - they contribute beauty and bio-diversity to space - creating a working landscape for both people and wildlife. Therefore, while they do not (at least at first glance) produce fertilizer, heat, or energy as do many of the aforementioned source separated technologies, they are inherently sustainable natural systems. The different types of constructed wetlands include surface flow and subsurface flow. Subsurface flow constructed wetlands are well suited for decentralized wastewater treatment applications because treatment occurs below the surface, limiting contact with the wastewater as it is treated. There are two different subsurface flow wetlands - vertical and horizontal flow. Effluent in vertical constructed wetlands is distributed intermittently by using a pump and electricity and the effluent flows vertically through the planted filter media (Hoffman et. al., 2011). According to Morel & Diener (2006) they typically have higher nitrogen removal efficiencies and need less space than horizontal constructed wetlands (Hoffman et. al., 2011). The effluent in horizontal constructed wetlands flows continuously and horizontally through the planted filter media and they operate without pumps or electricity (Hoffman et. al., 2011). They

Septic Tank/s

Aerobic Biofilter

Constructed Wetland

Figure 62 | Typical Treatment Train For Constructed Wetlands in Cold Climates Source: Based on Jenssen et. al., 2005.

This system could also be combined with additional UV disinfection for advanced treatment and reuse in irrigation, toilet flushing or release to a nearby stream or water body. It could also be released for soil dispersal. Overall the total surface area of the system ranges between ~23-40 ft2 per person (7-12m2) and the depth ranges between ~3.3-3.9 ft (1.0-1.2 m) (Jenssen et. al., 2005). According to Jenssen et. al. (2004) such depths are needed so the upper part of the system can freeze allows for sufficient hydraulic capacity to transport water below the freezing zone. The aerobic biofilter which is used, is a singlepass filter. It is also located underground to avoid freezing and should have a standard depth of ~24 in (60 cm) and a grain size between ~0.04-0.39 in (2-10mm) (Jenssen et. al., 2005). When different filter media was tested for the biofilter there was no significant differences with regards to their treatment capacity. The most important parameter is that the type of media provides the appropriate surface area for treatment. The biofilter should use a spray nozzle for intermittant wastewater distribution

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES | THE POTENTIAL FOR ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT

at a maximum hydraulic loading rate of ~8-12 in/ day (20-30 cm/day) and > 12 doses/day according to research completed by Jenssen et. al. (2005). This loading regime is important for providing sufficient aeration. In the end, the biofilter is typically responsible for 70% of the BOD and SS removal and 20-40% of total Nitrogen (Jenssen et. al., 2005). The constructed wetland component is a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland. As the biofilter does not achieve significant phosphorous removal, the wetland media should be designed and chosen according to its phosphorous sorption capacity as needed. Iron rich sand and shell sand or media which is specifically designed for phosphorous sorption perform best. With an appropriate media, phosphorous removal is typically greater than 90% (Jenssen et. al., 2005). The plant roots play an additional role in nitrogen removal (Jenssen et. al., 2005). Bacteria and pathogen removal rates of constructed wetlands have also been found to be more efficient than anaerobic digestion (Hoffmann et. al., 2011). Interestingly, once the porous media is saturated with phosphorous, it can be used as a fertilizer (Jenssen et. al., 2005). If this is done, phosphorous, which is scarce, can be recovered from the wastewater stream without urine separation. Due to concerns that heavy metals would also be present in the media, tests were completed and the results show that heavy metal concentrations were low compared to

Norweigian Standards for sewage sludge which can be applied to agriculture (Jenssen et. al., 2005). Therefore, while using the filter media for direct use in agriculture is possible, if there are concerns about heavy metal concentrations the media could be used to fertilize ornamental gardens instead. In summary, there are many benefits of a biofilter/ constructed wetland system and compared to other mechanical systems they require less energy, do not need skilled operators and have lower operating costs. These are important characteristics for a small town. Additionally, it is believed that household acceptance could be generated more easily than many of the other aforementioned source separated technologies. However, if cluster systems are developed, it would require new levels of governance and management. Additionally, the community/ present land owners within the town center would need to accept using a portion of existing vacant land for wastewater treatment. Yet, if properly designed, this systems could improve vacant land and turn a problem into an asset. It could also create additional public space in a community where the small town common is the only public space available. Other disadvantages include the fact that they are relatively land intensive. However, as opposed to urban regions, small town centers typically have fewer people and more space.

Figure 64 | Treatment Train Featuring Constructed Wetlands For Household Applications In Cold Climates Source: Jenssen et. al. (2004)

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES

ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The previous analysis has helped define a set of primary criteria which is important for small town wastewater systems. A system should be easily accepted, simple, cost effective, energy efficient, and flexible in addition to adding either social or environmental value. A system should be easily accepted by those who use it without requiring a significant behavioral change or interference in households. It should be simple with regards to construction, O&M and mechanical parts. Local contractors should be able to build the system without resorting to specialized services and the system should be cost effective. It should also be energy efficient and gravity should be used for collection whenever possible in order to limit electricity consumption required by pumps. A system should also add value to the community either environmentally, economically or socially. A comprehensive list of secondary criteria has also been investigated, and involves broader environmental, economic, technical and operational, and social and cultural criteria1. The set of primary criteria has been developed with regards to the specific context of Colrain, and more details can be found in the Table 13 on p. 123 in the Appendix. However, a town facing water scarcity, may want to include water conservation as part of the primary criteria for example. Weston & Sampson Alternative 2a | The alternative presented by Weston & Sampson fairs poorly across all the primary criteria and it is not considered an appropriate system for the Colrain Other assessment criteria and goals include 1) Environmental Criteria: minimize potable water use, maximize greywater reuse, minimize the volume of wastewater generated, minimize contaminants in wastewater, minimize greenhouse gas emissions, minimize eutrophication, minimize nutrients in wastewater (NPK), minimize energy use, maximize the recovery of organic matter, energy, heat, and water, and nutrients; 2) Economic Criteria: minimize construction cost such as land, engineering and equipment costs, minimize operation and maintenance costs such as electricity costs and staff costs; 3) Technical and Operation Criteria: achieve effluent quality standards, comply with regulations, maximize use of existing infrastructure, comply with public health requirements, choose durable systems, extend system life, increase flexibility and adaptability, reduce complexity and ease monitoring; 4) Social and Cultural Criteria: maximize public acceptance and convenience. Source: Based on Tjandraatmadja, Sharma, Grant, & Pamminger (2013) and TTZ; TUHH; NETSSAF (n.d.). 1

Village Center. Blackwater to Energy | Vacuum toilet technologies and collection systems are not recommended because such a system would require a great deal of sophisticated and relatively expensive technology which would produce little heat and energy. However such a system adds value in the form of energy, utilization of household green waste, it conserves water, and greywater treatment contributes to the natural and working landscape. Therefore such as system has a strong rating when it comes to added value. Blackwater to Compost | Composting toilets could prove successful on a case by case basis, possibly with their application being more appropriate and accepted within public and/ or business situations rather than in private households. Their application could allow for new construction on difficult sites when combined with alternative technogies for the treatment of greywater. They could also be used to reduce the size of the SAS of a septic system or as a solution for biologically overloaded systems. Yet, acceptance is considered to be the biggest challenge to implementation. While they are relatively easy to implement, they are easier to implement in new construction rather than renovation projects. They are energy efficient because they require no energy and they add value by returning nutrients to soil and improving its absorption capacity. Urine to Fertilizer | Urine separation could be implemented in combination with composting toilets and/or with urine diversion flush toilets to reduce the nitrogen and nutrient load of wastewater. Urine could be collected to fertilize neighboring hayfields. However, garnering acceptance from households and farmers would be needed. Overall, the system is similar to that of composting toilets, with the added value of liquid fertilizer for hayfields.

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES | ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Sim

1 2

tiv

ib lex

Eff ec

tiv

Energy Efficient

Acceptable

On-Site and Cluster System | Biofilter/ Constructed Wetland

Sim

ple

alu

Sim

1 2

Energy Efficient

Sim

ple

alu

1 2

Eff

tiv

ibl

x Fle

Eff ec

tiv

Figure 65 | Assessment of the Treatment Alternatives Source: Assessment Criteria developed from Rodale Institute (2013) and Tjandraatmadja, Sharma, Grant, & Pamminger (2013). Graphic: Author.

ple

alu

Energy Efficient

Eff

Dual System | Blackwater to Compost

Eff ec

tiv

1 2

ibl

x Fle

Acceptable

ibl

On-site and Cluster System | Media Filters

Sim

1 2

Energy Efficient

ple

alu

x Fle

ibl

x Fle

Energy Efficient

Eff

Acceptable

Sim

1 2

Dual System | Blackwater to Energy

ple

alu

ibl

x Fle

ple

alu

Energy Efficient

Acceptable

Triple System | Urine to Fertilizer

Acceptable

Centralized System | Weston & Sampson Alternative 2a

Worst

5 Best

Media Filters | There are a variety of media filters and combinations which could be designed to meet the needs of individual properties as well as the need-based clusters as previously outlined. These systems satisfy all of the primary criteria, but they fall slightly short when it comes to added value. While they are an appropriate technology when it comes to technical and operation criteria, they in themselves do not promote water conservation, or contribute natural habitat or fertilizer for example. Biofilter/Constructed Wetland | These systems satisfy all of the criteria and add value by contributing ecosystem services. Therefore, this system is considered to be an interesting alternative for cluster and household systems and it will be utilized in the conceptual proposal for the Colrain Village Center.

pursue a decentralized approach. If the town wants to promote development and reuse within the Colrain Village Center, it will need to play a part in alleviating a portion of the cost and managing the systems. The fact that the town currently has a large grant of $2.5 million to build Alternative 2b as recommended as part of the Weston & Sampson report, it should be investigated whether this grant could be used to analyze and implement decentralized infrastructure. If this is done, all systems within the Colrain Village Center should be inspected in order to be sure that all systems meet the public health and environmental standards and incorporate this into the plan.

ALTERNATIVE COST COMPARISON TREATMENT SYSTEM

DESIGN AND INSTALLATION ($|€)

ANNUAL OPERATION COSTS ($|€)

Conventional Septic System

$5 - 8,000 | ~€4,386-7,017

$1-200 | ~€88-175

It must be acknowledged that implementation of any of the alternatives will still cost more than conventional septic systems (see Table 1) and therefore do not overcome one of the most important barriers to smart growth within small town centers - the financial barrier.

Mound System

$7-30,000 | ~€6,140-26,314

$1-400 ~€88-351

Single Pass Filter with Shallow Drainfield

$ 8-15,000 | ~€7,017-13,157

$2-500 ~€175-439

Recirculating Drainfield with Shallow Drainfield

$18 - 21,000 | ~€15,788-18,419

$3-400 ~€262-351

THE NEED FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND FINANCING

Constructed Wetland2

$25 - 37,000 | ~€21,928-32,453

$375-600 ~€328-526

Two Composting Toilets With Greywater Filter3

$20,000 (Toilets) | ~€17,542 $5-6,000 (Greywater Filter ) | ~€4,3865,263

Varies

THE FINANCIAL BARRIER TO ALTERNATIVES

Because of the remaining financial barrier, the sixth sustainable development goal, Governance for Sustainable Societies, becomes essential. In an effort to remove the financial barrier, a governance and maintenance structure which balances property owner costs so that they are comparable with the cost of conventional septic systems should be sought. To do so the town should own and operate the decentralized infrastructure. The US EPA (2003) report titled, Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems, outlines different management guidelines for decentralized wastewater treatment systems, which could serve as a guide for the town if they decide to

Fixed Activated Sludge System

$15-25,000 | ~€13,157-21,928

$600-800 ~€526-702

Table 1 | Basic Cost Comparison of Various Alternative Systems Note: The majority of these cost estimates are from the early 2000s whereas the cost for constructed wetlands is from 2013. Therefore it is likely that the cost of the other systems is now more than what is shown here. Source: Joubert et. al. (2004), Rodale Institute (2013)2, Clivus Multrum (personal communication, March 20, 2016)2.

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES | ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

HOUSEHOLD SCALE

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES

PILOTING THE BIOFILTER/ CONSTRUCTED WETLAND SYSTEM The results of the assessment indicate that there are a variety of technologies which could be applied within the context of the Colrain Village Center, each of them having their own strengths and weaknesses. As the biofilter/ constructed wetland system performs well across the different criteria, the possibility for application within the Colrain Village Center will be investigated further. The first experiments utilizing constructed wetland technology to treat wastewater took place at the Max Planck Institute in Germany in the early 1950s (Hoffmann et. al., 2011). Since then they have been used to treat wastewater (of various types) in many countries around the world at different scales ranging from small scale residential applications (Image 11), to commercial/public facilities (Image 10) and whole communities (Image 12). But at what scale would alternative constructed wetlands meet the needs of the Colrain Village Center?

PRIORITY TREATMENT CLUSTERS The following priorities have been established to help determine an appropriate scale for the village center. The first priority should address systems which are currently failing because they are considered to be a public health and environmental threat. The second priority should address those properties which stand vacant and which would most likely not have sufficient space to meet their wastewater needs and the third priority should support new development within the town center as desired by residents according to the Town of Colrain Center Village Master Plan (2014). 73

Image 11| Horizontal Constructed Wetland In Stuhare, Czech Republic Provides domestic treatment in Struhare, Czech Republic. Source: Vymazal (2010)

COMMERCIAL/PUBLIC SCALE

Image 10|Terraced Constructed Wetland System At Sidwell Friends Middle School Serves as a living laboratory for students in Washington, D.C. The system and treats 3,000 GPD (11,356 LPD) and the CW is combined with a recirculating sand filter, trickling filter, micron filters and UV disenfection before reuse in urinals and for toilet flushing. Source: http://www.biohabitats.com/projects/sidwell-friends-middleschool-natural-wastewater-and-stormwater-treatment-reuse-system/

COMMUNITY SCALE

Image 12| Community Scale Horizontal Constructed Wetland Provides tertiary treatment for 600 people in Staverton, United Kingdom. Source: Vymazal (2010)

ESTIMATING WASTEWATER FLOW & SPACE REQUIREMENTS

PRIORITY WASTEWATER FLOW & SPACE REQUIREMENTS

In order to get an idea of the wastewater design flow for each of the different priorities, the following design flow calculations have been made according the methodology outlined in Title 5. The constructed wetland area which is needed to treat these flows has also been estimated (Table 2). This provides a first estimate, but when and if other wastewater needs present themselves new wastewater clusters/ or partial clusters could be formed. The benefit of constructed wetland technology is that they offer a modular and flexible approach that can be modified to suit changing conditions.

Priority 1 | Failing Systems (Individual & Cluster)

Priority 1 | Cluster Systems For Properties With Failing Systems The reasons why the properties with failing systems are failing is unknown. Possibilities for remediation and local variances should be considered, but if alternative technologies are needed, a cluster could be considered for the two neighboring properties with failing systems.

PRIORITY

ESTIMATED DESIGN FLOW (GPD |LPD)

Individual 1 Single Family Residence

330 | 1,249

Individual 1 Single Family Residence

330 | 1,249

Cluster 1 Office/Garage & 1 Single Family Residence

530 | 2,006

Wastewater Flow Sub Total

1,190 | 4,505

Person Equivalent 110 GPD | 416 LPD (Per Person)

Biofilter/Constructed Wetland Space Requirements 40 FT2 | 12 M2 (Per Person)

433 FT2 | 132 M2

Priority 2 | Restoration/ Renovation Cluster 1 Apartment Block/Artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Studio

880 | 3,331

1 Restaurant

1,000 | 3,785

1 Community Center/Event Space

960 | 3,634

Wastewater Flow Sub Total

1,960 | 7,419

Person Equivalent 110 GPD | 416 LPD (Per Person)

Biofilter/Constructed Wetland Space Requirements 40 FT2 | 12 M2 (Per Person)

713 FT2| 217 M2

Priority 3 | New Construction Cluster

Parcel | Road | River Outlines Buildings Lots with Failing Systems

Septic Tank Post Treatment

Figure 66 | Priority 1 - Cluster Systems For Properties With Failing Systems

Priority 2 | A Community Cluster For Existing Properties With Small Lots All three properties which form part of this cluster are vacant (Image 13) and the implementation of a cluster system would support their renovation. Additional neighboring properties could also join this cluster as needed and properties with failing systems could also be included.

1 Hotel/Bed & Breakfast

880 | 3,331

4 Single Family Residences

1,320 | 4,997

4 Affordable Apartments

1,320| 4,997

Wastewater Flow Sub Total

3,520 | 13,325

Person Equivalent 110 GPD | 416 LPD (Per Person)

Biofilter/Constructed Wetland Space Requirements 40 FT2 | 12 M2 (Per Person)

1,280 FT2|390 M2

Table 2 | Approximate Wastewater Design Flow & Spatial Estimate Source: Based on MASS DEP (2014a) & Jenssen et. al. (2005). Calculated by Author.

The Blue Block

Old Church | Restaurant

Vacant

The Brick Meeting House Vacant

Vacant

Image 13 | Buildings With Limited Space To Meet Their Wastewater Needs Which Compose The Renovation Cluster // Photo: Author (2015)

Parcel | Road | River Outlines Above Ground Stream Below Ground Stream Buildings

Small Lots Septic System CW Treatment System 50FT (~15M) Stream Buffer

Figure 67 | Priority 2 - Community Cluster System For Existing Properties With Small Lots

Priority 3 | New Development Community Cluster In the spirit of smart growth, the town center should promote new development where possible and these locations have been identified. This new development should contribute to the mix of land uses, create a range of housing choices and aim to increase the population of those who live in the Colrain Village Center who can support existing and future amenities and services. For estimation purposes, four single family homes, one pubic/commercial building (i.e. a bed and breakfast for example) and four affordable apartments could be built on vacant lots within the Village Center. The spatial needs of the constructed biofilter/ constructed wetland system are shown for Priority Two (Figure 67) and Priority Three (Figure 68). For the renovation cluster ~713 FT2 (217 M2 ) is needed and for the new development cluster 1,280 FT2 (390 M2) is needed. This shows that there is sufficient space for the biofilter/ constructed wetland systems components 75

Parcel | Road | River Outlines Above Ground Stream Below Ground Stream Buildings

Possible New Development Septic System CW Treatment System 50FT (~15M) Stream Buffer

Figure 68 | Priority 3 - Community Cluster System For New Development The priority 2 cluster system is also shown here.

within the Colrain Village Center and close to the buildings for which they serve.

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE & REGULATORY COMPLIANCE The treatment performance of biofilter/ constructed wetland systems and their ability to meet local regulations also needs to be considered. Therefore, a performance summary of 10 different biofilter/constructed wetland systems in Norway has been provided in Table 4 so that their performance can be compared

to the requirements for alternative technologies certified for general use in Massachusetts (Table 5). This comparison shows that the system is likely to provide sufficient BOD treatment, but while the system has the capacity to meet the local requirements for Total Nitrogen (TN), this will need to be monitored because not all systems consistently meet local requirements. Regarding phosphorous treatment efficiency, in Norway systems are designed and sized according to their ability to remove phosphorous, and when the proper media is used, treatment efficiencies in the range of 93-98% are achieved. While maximum phosphorous concentrations are not required as part of local performance criteria, these results are positive. Exact values for TSS performance were not provided, but a graph showing values regarding SS removal rates of different biofilter media are shown to be below 30 mg/l (Jenssen et. al., 2005). Therefore it is likely that the system would meet local requirements. The same is true for pH levels, where the pH levels for different biofilter media are shown to be between 6.0-9.0, except when perlite is used as a filter media (Jenssen et. al., 2005). No information regarding dissolved oxygen levels or turbidity levels of the biofilter/ constructed wetland system were provided, so additional performance assessments are needed to ensure compliance. Overall, these results show potential for piloting a combined biofilter/constructed wetland system in Massachusetts. Piloting involves the installation, field testing and technical evaluation of a technology whereby functionality is monitored under local conditions (MASS DEP, 2013). According to MASS DEP (2013), if piloting results are positive, a system can pass to provisional use where additional testing under actual field conditions is completed, and if successful, the next stage requires meeting the certification requirements for general use. Where a number of biofilter technologies have received certification for general use, the biofilter/constructed wetland combination is not believed to have been tested and no systems of this kind are known to have been used to treat wastewater in Massachusetts.

BIOFILTER/CONSTRUCTED WETLAND PERFORMANCE (Summary of results from 10 blackwater treatment systems in Norway serving between 7-60 people)

Treatment Parameter BOD7

Effluent Efficiency (%) 80-98

Concentration

COD

41-88

24-143

Total Nitrogen (TN)

41-79

9-49

Total Phosphorous

93-98

0.01-0.4

Coliform Bacteria

<100 CFU/100ml

(mg/l)

5-15

Table 3 | Biofilter/Constructed Wetland Performance Source: Based on Jenssen et. al. (2005)

ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CERTIFIED FOR GENERAL USE (For secondary treatment units certified for general use and less than 2,000 GPD)

Treatment Parameter BOD5

Concentration Max. (mg/l) 30

COD

Total Nitrogen (TN)

Total Phosphorous (TP)

Coliform Bacteria

TSS

6.0-9.0

Turbidity

< 40 NTU

Dissolved Oxygen

Table 4 | Alternative Technology General Use Requirements Source: MASS DEP (2015)

RECLAIMED WATER REUSE STANDARD (For systems located within a nitrogen sensitive area per Title 5)

Treatment Parameter

CLASS A

CLASS B

CLASS C

(Maximum in mg/l)

BOD

COD

T Nitrogen

T Phosphorous Coliform Bacteria

Median of 0 Median of14 CFU/100ml & <14 CFU/100ml & CFU/100ml <100 CFU/100ml

Median of 200 CFU/100ml

TSS

6.5-8.5

Turbidity

< 2 NTU

Table 5 | Reuse Of Reclaimed Water Class A: Irrigation where public contact is possible, toilet and urinal flushing, agricultural use where there is no direct contact with edible portion of the crop, wetland creation etc. Class B: Irrigation where public contact is unlikely, agricultural use for animal pasture etc. Class C: Agricultural use for orchard and vineyard irrigation, etc. Source: MASS DEP (2009)

APPLYING THE ALTERNATIVES | PILOTING THE BIOFILTER/CONSTRUCTED WETLAND

DISPERSAL & REUSE AFTER TREATMENT Even if a biofilter/constructed wetland system passes piloting, provisional use and certification for general use, the outflow/discharge from the system still needs to be released back into the environment. In Massachusetts, the effluent/ ouflow of a system of any size - large or small can not be discharged to surface waters without requiring a NPDES permit and the requirements for a permit are not easily met and should be avoided. That means that the effluent needs to be infiltrated, often requiring significant space. In the case of remedial use and new residential construction, where secondary treatment units such as the biofilter/constructed wetland system are incorporated, the SAS area can be reduced by 50% (Golden, 2015). This is helpful considering that space is limited within the Colrain VIllage Center. Leach fields are the most common type of SAS system, but alternative SAS technologies such as bottomless sand filters, drip disposal and evaporation beds can also be used depending on the given site conditions. The outflow can also be reused, which can reduce the amount water which needs to be infiltrated, but unfortunately no further reductions in the size of the SAS can be garnered.

In the case of reuse, different types, classes and treatment standards have been defined (Table 5). In most cases, reuse typically requires further advanced treatment such as disinfection through ultraviolet radiation or further filtration. For example, reuse for toilet flushing would need to meet Class A standards and the biofilter/constructed wetland system would, on its own, have difficulty meeting these requirements. While reuse reduces potable water consumption, another benefit is that it could potentially reduce the amount of wastewater effluent/outflow which needs to be infiltrated by 29% (since blackwater composes around 29% of indoor wastewater flow - Figure 50, p. 56). Yet, even if reuse is incorporated, no further reductions in the size of the SAS are possible, and this could an incentive for reuse if accepted as part of local regulations and as of yet, there are few incentives for reuse. Because of this, new reuse standards are being developed to provide more incentives for reuse (EEA, n.d.). Another possible means of reducing the amount of wastewater effluent which needs to be infiltrated and the space needed to do so, could be to incorporate zero to low discharge willow constructed wetland systems where discharge is either reduced or eliminated by evaporation from the soil and plant surface (Brix & Arias, 2005). In order to ensure high transpiration rates, one-third to one-half of the willows should

Solids-Free Sewer Variable Slope

Septic Tank Septic Tank

Figure 69 | Conceptual System Design To Serve The Needs Of The Renovation Cluster Sources: Plant Species are based on Hoffmann et. al. (2011) and native species and images were found on http://plants.usda.gov. Graphic: Author

be harvested every year (Brix & Arias, 2005) and this material could be harvested and used to heat homes in the winter (linking energy and water ) or be used for basket weaving (local crafts). However, the problem with a zero discharge CW system is that it requires between ~394-984 ft2 (120-300 m2) per person (Brix & Arias, 2005). Therefore, for the renovation cluster, for which an 18 person equivalent has been calculated, a total area between ~7,092-17,712 ft2 (2,1605,400 m2) would be needed (Figure 85). This would utilize a significant portion of the land available to the back of the vacant lots next to the Brick Meeting House, eliminating space for the treatment of wastewater from a new development cluster. However, perhaps a new concept for a willow/drip irrigation SAS could be developed where the spacial needs of the SAS could be reduced by combining infiltration with the high evaporative quality and capacity of willows. Such an application could potentially reduce the required size of a SAS, however such a system would need to be investigated further before piloting such as system. As a result, it is possible that the application of a biofilter/constructed wetland system within the Colrain Village Center may be limited by the spatial requirements that are needed, not for the biofilter/constructed wetland system itself, but by the space needed for infiltration. Because of this, the system may need to be located

outside or at the border of the village center and require a more extensive collection system. Nonetheless, this analysis can not determine this to be true without determining the actual soil infiltration rates. Soil filtration rates of the most limiting layer at the intended treatment site are estimated to be between 0.06-6 in/hr (~0.15-15 cm/hr) according to USDA NRCS (2015) (Figure 38, p. 38). The faster the infiltration rate, the less space needed for a SAS. However, this goes beyond the capacity of this analysis. Therefore, for the purposes of this thesis, a disposal system will be envisioned that incorporates both reuse and a willow/drip irrigation system, which together have the potential to reduce the space needed for a SAS, but these potential reductions could only be achieved if current regulations are modified to accept such innovations.

CONCEPT PROPOSAL Figure 69 shows a conceptual proposal for the implementation of the biofilter/constructed wetland system showing different elements and components of such a system. It represents a proposal of what could be done, but does not represent a solution which is ready for application, it would require further investigations and analysis.

Native Cold Climate Species Broadleaf Cattail (Typha latifolia L.)

American Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.)

Native Willows Black Willow (Salix Nigra Marshall)

Pussy Willow (Salix Discolor Muhl.)

Sandbar Willow (Salix Interior Rowlee)

BioFilter

Drip Irrigation System Drip Irrigation Tank

Intermittent Stream Existing

Collection Tank

Dosing Pump

Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland

5 ADDING ADDITIONAL VALUE

At this point, it is important to go back to the research problem: RESEARCH PROBLEM: Can integrated resource management support the revitalization of the Colrain Village Center?

A thorough investigation of Integrated (Water) Resources Management (IWRM) from the perspective of wastewater management has been achieved. However, â&#x20AC;&#x153;waterâ&#x20AC;? was intentionally dropped from this research problem. While further investigations in stormwater and rainwater could still be made and merit attention, it is believed that integrating other resources such as food and energy is relevant if a wholistic approach to revitalization and sustainable development is desired and that there are significant opportunities available to do so.

Moreover, considering the larger context of urbanization and population decline, small towns will need to reinvent themselves in order to retain and attract a new generation of inhabitants. Besides, they should be able to meet many of their own resource needs in addition to meeting a portion of the resource needs of urban communities. The previous analysis has shown that the Colrain Village Center has abundant and accessible water resources, but there are also untapped opportunities with regards to energy and food production, which could also add value to the settlement. Hence, two brief analyses in food and energy follow.

Image 14 | Building Integrated Solar Panels at the Katywil Farm Community // Photo: Author (2015)

ADDING ADDITIONAL VALUE

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY Massachusetts has a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 (Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2010). The state intends to achieve these reductions through energy efficiency, improvements to transportation, electricity generation and smart growth (Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 2010).

sited in the county since 2010. This already surpasses Franklin County’s regional goal for new renewable energy capacity by 2020 (FRCOG, 2013). These new facilities contribute the region’s already existing 110 MW of hydroelectic power more than twice the total electricity needs of the county as a whole (FRCOG, 2013). Therefore, it is

Massachusetts currently imports nearly all of its energy needs, except contributions from the production of nuclear energy and renewable energy (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013). This means that Massachusetts, for the most part, does not have control over the price and availability of its energy supply.

Per Capita Carbon Emissions for Massachusetts & Franklin County

While sustainable transportation remains a challenge for Franklin County, the region is doing considerably better when it comes to siting clean and renewable energy. According to FRCOG (2013), more than 18 MW of renewable energy in the form of solar and wind have been

4.5

TONS OF CARBON PER CAPITA

4.0 3.5

15%

3.0 2.5

46%

26%

2.0 1.5

14%

1.0 0.5

Franklin County

0 Massachusetts

In order to progress towards sustainable energy, Franklin County should strive for energy self-sufficiency by reducing energy consumption and generating renewable energy to meet consumption needs, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At present, the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of Franklin County residents is higher than the Massachusetts state average (see Figure 70). This is likely due to the fact that the transportation sector is responsible for around 46% of all energy consumption (see Figure 73). In rural Franklin County, people tend to drive relatively large distances to work and to access various services and amenities which are often lacking in one’s own community. Colrain is an example of such a community. This makes smart growth particularly important because if small town centers are able to provide more services, amenities, and work opportunities for inhabitants, people will drive less.

Energy Consumption in Franklin County (By Sector)

Figure 70 | Per Capita Carbon Emissions In Franklin County Source: FRCOG (2013). Graphic: Author.

Transportation Industrial Residential Commercial

Figure 71 | Energy Consumption by Sector In Franklin County Source: FRCOG (2013). Graphic: Author.

Franklin County Renewable Energy Generation is 2.3x Consumption Needs of the County (2013)

Figure 72 | Estimated Renewable Energy Generation In Franklin County is 2.3x Consumption Needs Source: Based on FRCOG (2013). Graphic: Author

ADDING ADDITIONAL VALUE | SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Average Massachusetts Household Energy Consumption

Average Massachusetts Household Energy Costs 3.5 | 3.1

Other Electric & Lighting

Air Conditioning

Water Heating

Space Heating

10 5 0

3 | 2.7 2.5 | 2.2 2 | 1.8 1.5 |1.3 1 | 0.9 0.5 |0.45 0 Electricity Cost

ENERGY COST ( THOUSAND $ | € )

Total Energy Cost

Solar Energy Potential | In an effort to integrate renewable energy production within the Colrain Village Center, a basic analysis was conducted using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s PVWatts® Calculator to estimate how much electricity could be generated by utilizing existing rooftops. Currently, no rooftops have photovoltaics installed. The results of the analysis found that a total of 462,762 kWh per year could be produced by installing premium (crystalline silicon) roof mounted photovoltaic modules within the project area. Considering that the average household electricity consumption in Massachusetts is 6,967 kWh per year (Figure 73) the estimated electricity consumption of households (74) within the Colrain Village Center is around 515,558 kWh per year. Therefore, the Colrain Village Center could theoretically meet 90% of its household electricity needs by installing solar panels on rooftops (*including commercial and public rooftops production, but not including their electricity consumption) (Figure 74). As Massachusetts has net metering, not a feed-in

Integrating solar photovoltaic or solar hot water panels within the Colrain Village Center would

Total Energy Consumption

More than half of the towns in Franklin county are participating in The Green Communities Designation and Grant Program (FRCOG, 2013) which helps towns improve energy efficiency and increase their use of renewable energy. Additionally, Solarize Massachusetts helps increase the adoption of small-scale solar electricity by aggregating homeowner buying power to reduce the cost of solar electric system installation by around 20% (Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, 2016). Colrain will be participating in this program in 2016 and the program has proven highly successful in neighboring small towns, more than doubling the number of solar electric systems already present (Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, 2016). This presents an economic incentive for Colrain and for the Colrain Village Center to integrate solar photovoltaics on existing homes and businesses. The town should also consider applying for designation as a Green Community to pursue further efficiency and renewable energy generation possibilities.

tariff, it would be beneficial for neighbors to share output from roofs which can generate more power than they consume. Cooperative solar power should therefore be considered. Taking advantage of different financing opportunities could reduce the payback to less than 6 years for some photovoltaic system (Solarize Mass Shelburne-Colrain-Conway, 2016). For further details concerning the calculations see Appendix Table 9 on p. 120.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION (THOUSAND kWh)

estimated that Franklin County produces at least 2.3 times the amount of electricity consumed by its population. However, the actual amount of renewable energy is likely to be even greater because these figures do not include other renewable facilities installed before 2010 or small scale household solar electric generation which is gaining in popularity.

Figure 73 | Massachusetts Household Energy Consumption & Costs In 2009 Source: EIA (2009). Graphic: Author.

The Colrain Village Center Electricity Self-Sufficiency (Solar Photovoltaic) EXISTING Electricity Production

THEORETICAL Electricity Production

90%

Figure 74 | Present and Theoretical Electricity Production from rooftop Solar Photovoltaics Source: Calculated by Author using the NREL PVWatts® Calculator. Graphic: Author.

help reduce the vulnerability of residents to electricity price fluctuations and increase electricity self-reliance from a renewable source. Residents should also look into MassCEC’s Residential and Small-Scale Solar Hot Water program which provides rebates for the installation of solar hot water systems. Solar electric and hot water technologies are especially relevant for Massachusetts, which has one of the highest electricity prices in the United States. As of October 2015, Massachusetts was ranked fifth in the nation with regards to the average retail price (0.18$/kWh or 0.16€/kWh) of electricity in the residential sector (EIA, 2015). Even though electricity composes a small share of household energy use (excluding transportation) it composes a much larger share of household energy costs (Figure 73). WInd Energy Potential | Other opportunities for renewable energy production in Colrain include wind power see | Wind Speed Analysis, p. 121, but this production would take place outside the Village Center. Biomass Potential | It can be seen that space heating composes a large portion of household energy consumption. At present 57% of homes in Franklin County are heated using fuel oil and only 13% of homes use wood for space heating (FRCOG, 2013). This is surprising considering that there is an abundant amount of forestland in the region. In Colrain, forestland composes around 90% of the entire land area. Therefore, locally produced and sustainably harvested firewood and wood pellets should continue to be used for space heating and older wood stoves should be replaced with energy-efficient ones and the region should continue to promote and market its wood products. Residents should look into MassCEC’s rebate program which helps residents replace non-EPA-certified wood stoves with cleaner, more efficient EPA-certified wood or pellet stoves. These stoves greatly reduce their contribution to air pollution. Regarding biogas potential from manure, it was found that producing biogas from animal manure would not be possible considering that the number and size of dairy farms in Colrain would not support this kind of energy production. Furthermore, manure is considered to be in short supply in the town and it is needed to fertilize the town’s existing hayfields. Hydro-electric Potential | Franklin county already has a number of hydroelectric facilities and these facilities, while generating a great deal of the renewable energy in Franklin County, also have contributed to soil erosion, and have altered flow patterns of local rivers (FRCOG, 2013). Additionally, flood risks associated to dam failures must be considered. While smallscale hydropower projects could be examined further, they will not be considered here.

ADDING ADDITIONAL VALUE | SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

ADDING ADDITIONAL VALUE

SUSTAINABLE FOOD Agriculture is alive and well in Franklin County. Between 2002 and 2007, the number of farms increased by as much as 26% and the amount of land being farmed increased by 7% (USDA, 2007). At the same time, community supported agriculture, farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s markets and demand for local products have also been gaining in popularity (FRCOG, 2013). Agriculture has been and will likely continue to be a defining characteristic of the landscape and the economy, contributing to the lives and livelihoods of residents in addition to meeting some of the nutritional needs of inhabitants. Three of Colrainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s many small market gardens and farm stands are located around 0.5 miles (1.6 km) or less from the Colrain Village Center. One of which is located just at the edge of the Colrain Village Center (Figure 33). These operations are reminiscent of a new movement of farming in the region - small gardens which thrive on diversity and specialty crops that can be directly marketed to the consumer. In addition to market gardens, Colrainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s traditional farming activities continue as they have for many years. Farming activities include growing apples, sugaring (making maple syrup), dairy farming and animal husbandry. Yet, over the last few years, there has been a decline in dairy farming as farms succumb to market and price

competition from beyond the region. In addition to these commercial agricultural operations, it is also popular for households to have their own small gardens and animals whose products are used for personal consumption. Protecting farmland and local food supplies is the top natural resource goal outlined as part of the Sustainable Franklin County plan (FRCOG, 2013). Additionally, interest in food self-reliance has also been gaining more attention in the last few years. In 2012, the Franklin County Farmland and Foodshed Study investigated how much farmland Franklin County would theoretically need to fulfill the nutritional needs of its population, either by achieving full food self-sufficiency or a degree of self-reliance. According to Elizares & Lane (2012) self-sufficiency has been defined, in the context of the report, as meeting all the nutritional needs of a population whereas selfreliance means that all the vegetable, dairy and meat consumption of inhabitants is met locally, but only around 40% of the need for grains and 50% of the need for fruit and sugar is met locally. Self-reliance is considered a better goal than self-sufficiency given the regions climate and high percentage of forest coverage which constitutes around 77% of the entire land area in Franklin County (FRCOG, 2013).

Image 15 | K&L Organic Growers & Friends (Market Garden) // Photo: Author (2015)

Three factors are considered as part of the calculation of food self-sufficiency and reliance: the size and growth rate of the population, the average diet of the population based on USDA and Harvard School of Public Health nutritional guidelines and the approximate caloric yield of farmland based on the use of sustainable practices (Elizares & Lane, 2012). This foodshed analysis is under development by Brandeis University professor Brian Donahue. See Food Solutions New England for further information. The results of the study completed by Elizares & Lane (2012) showed that the amount of farmland (cropland, pasture land and orchards) in Franklin Country is close to what would be needed to achieve full self-sufficiency Using the same methodology used by Elizares & Lane (2012), which is based on the Food Solutions New England foodshed analysis, it was possible to calculate the amount of farmland needed to achieve food self-sufficiency and self-reliance in Colrain (see Appendix Table 10 on p. 122). This analysis was completed for the town of Colrain as a whole. The results (Figure 75) show that Colrain could be easily self-reliant given the food and nutritional needs of the population and the amount of farmland that is currently under cultivation. These results are positive considering that rural areas need to produce more food than they consume to meet the needs of growing urban populations. However, both self-sufficiency and self-reliance would require major changes to food production and consumption and involve changing what is grown and where products are sold in order to achieve this in reality.

Image 16| Farm Stand (Lyonsville Farm) Photo: Author (2015)

Image 17| Roadside Farm Stand (Lyonsville Farm) Photo: Author (2015)

The Town of Colrain Food Production Capacity Existing Cropland in Colrain is 3.8x What the Colrain Population Needs for Food Self-Sufficiency

Existing Cropland in Colrain is 5.1x What the Colrain Population Needs for Food Self-Reliance

Figure 75 | The Town of Colrain Potential For Food Self-Reliance/ Sufficiency Source: Calculated by Author, based on Elizares & Lane (2012)

Image 18| Market Garden At the Edge Of The Colrain Village Center This market garden & Farm Stand is located in Figure 76. Photo: Author (2015)

ADDING ADDITIONAL VALUE | SUSTAINABLE FOOD

Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Buildings Quality Farmland Not Quality Farmland

Existing Market Garden and Farm Stand Sells a variety of seasonal vegetables and homemade jams, maple syrup and preserves.

FARMLAND (PROJECT AREA)

51%

49%

QUALITY FARMLAND NOT QUALITY FARMLAND

250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 76 | Prime Farmland Source: MASS GIS (2015). Map: Author.

Taking a closer look at the Colrain Village Center, Figure 76 shows that most of the village center features land which has been designated as either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. This means that the Colrain Village Center is located on some of the best quality land for farming. Interestingly, the same land that is good for farming has limited soil filtration capacity (Figure 36, p. 37). However, only a few households have their own garden (Figure 26, p. 27). While some households do not have space for a garden, others have lots of space. If part of the attraction of living in a rural area is having the capacity and land to participate in agricultural activities, therefore a strategy which involves community garden space could help add value to the village center, making it more attractive for future inhabitants and adding value to the community. Therefore, soil should be regarded as a resource which can and should be integrated into a plan to support the revitalization of the Colrain Village Center.

6 CONCEPT INTEGRATION

The concept for integrated resource management within the Colrain Village Center is shown on the following page (Figure 77). Presently, the Brick Meeting House sits vacant at the heart of the community. While there are other influencing factors which contribute to vacancy, such as population decline and the high price tag for renovation, another contributing factor is that this building lacks suitable wastewater infrastructure and the space to implement it. Therefore, it is recommended that a decentralized wastewater cluster system be developed to support those properties which likely do not have enough space for a system on-site. There are three such properties within the Colrain Village Center and all three sit vacant. A constructed wetland/biofilter system is proposed to serve the renovation cluster because such a system satisfies the primary assessment criteria including acceptability, simplicity, cost effectiveness, energy efficiency, flexibility and adding value. It is a technology which would most likely be accepted by inhabitants, it is simple and can function with minimal energy and pumps, it does not need skilled operators to function and operating costs should be minimal compared to other mechanical systems. It is also flexible and scalable to suit differing and changing wastewater needs. The system blends into its surroundings, can be designed to utilize native species and contributes to a healthy ecosystem. Adding additional value such as solar electric panels and promoting local community gardening activities on open land can also contribute to meeting the nutritional and energetic needs of inhabitants in addition to improving the visual image of the Colrain Village Center. Such a wastewater system could also be developed to serve new construction and would help remove the barrier to smart growth if proper governance and management structure is developed. In summary, this system â&#x20AC;&#x153;promotes co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital systemsâ&#x20AC;? as IRWM is defined by the Global Water Partnership (2000, p. 22).

The objectives of sustainable resource management systems include reducing water consumption, converting organic waste to nutrient rich soil, producing food, and obtaining zero energy consumption. - Schuetze & SantiagoFandiĂąo (2014)

A concept map provides an overview of the main ideas and investigations in integrated resource management which have been developed as part of this thesis (Figure 79). In addition to the concept map, a summary of how resource management addresses the six sustainable development goals as outlined by Griggs, et. al. (2013) has also been provided (Figure 78). It is hoped that integrated resource management can support the revitalization of older small town centers such as the Colrain Village Center by retrofitting them with sustainable energy, appropriate decentralized water infrastructure, and making them attractive places to live which contribute to the lives and livelihoods of present and future inhabitants.

CONCEPT INTEGRATION

Existing Situation Vacant

Constructed Wetland/BioFilter Serving Existing Vacant Buildings with Small Lots and Added Value To Support Revitalization Farm Stand Solar

Willow Soil Absorption System

Parking Community | Market Garden

Constructed Wetland

Possibilities for Future Development New Construction Willow Soil Absorption System

Three Buildings Once Existed On This Lot

New Development Cluster

Constructed Wetlands

ex. The Old Ye Tavern

New Development Cluster

Figure 77 | Proposal For Concept Application Within The Colrain Village Center The Existing Situation (Top), A Constructed Wetland/Biofilter Serves Existing Lots with Small Lots & Added Value in Agriculture and Solar Energy Generation (Middle), An Additional Constructed Wetland/Biofilter System To Support Future New Development (Bottom). Graphic: Author.

Sustainable Development Goals Concept Integration Within The Colrain Village Center 1

Thriving Lives and Livelihoods

Going beyond basic needs, the concept of integrated resource management that has been developed has the potential to contribute to the lives and livelihoods of Colrain residents by supporting new and existing businesses, community spaces and households. It can help reduce driving distances, provide additional community amenities and improve rural liveability, which is necessary to attract young adults, to stay or to return, to sustain these small places. 2

Sustainable Food

Going beyond basic nutritional needs, the majority of soils within the village center are considered prime farmland. Therefore promoting household gardening and community supported agriculture can contribute a portion of the nutritional needs of inhabitants, provide supplementary income, generate a sense of community, and improve the quality and image of the town center. Additional concepts, include composting household green waste together with charcoal, a by-product of wood burning stoves which are used to heat homes, to help keep these agricultural soils healthy. Also, if composting toilets are implemented at some of the properties, this compost can be used for ornamental landscaping and to improve the water absorption capacity of soils which can help reduce downstream flooding in the watershed. 3

Sustainable Water

Different approaches to wastewater management and treatment can produce energy, recover nutrients and conserve water. Some of the technologies investigated show more potential than others and their application should be evaluated on a case by case basis. However, constructed wetlands satisfy all the primary criteria and this concept has been analysed in more detail. This system has the potential to treat water to local standards, contribute habitat to support healthy ecosystems, could be designed to add additional public space. While further investigations and piloting would be needed in order to apply this system, such as system could support both the renovation of existing structures and new construction. 4

Clean Energy

Converting wastewater to energy, as has been attempted at the Flintenbreite LĂźbeck project, is not considered to be a suitable solution to the Village Centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wastewater problem. However other investigations and links to energy have been assessed. The first link is water conservation. This limits the amount of water which is pumped up to the village center reservoir and the amount of water and electricity that needs to be heated. Another link is that willows, a component of the constructed wetland soil absorption system, can be utilized as an energy crop, although the scale of application within the Colrain Village Center would not yield sufficient biomass to do so. Nonetheless, willows could be used to heat homes, or (not related to energy) they could be used for basket weaving. Further investigations regarding the solar electric potential of rooftops were also completed and show that if south, east and west facing rooftops were fitted out with solar electric panels, they could theoretically generate and meet around 90% of household electricity consumption. It is also believed that these solar panels would help improve the image of the town center. Of course, sustainable energy production must be developed together with reductions in energy consumption and improvements in energy efficiency. 5

Healthy and Productive Ecosystems

The biofilter/constructed wetland system contributes native habitat to vacant land, supporting a healthy and productive ecosystem. It also contributes to aquifer recharge. Additionally, the porous media that is used in constructed wetlands can be used as a source of phosphorous fertilizer at the end of its useful life, helping return this important macro nutrient back to the land. 6

Governance for Sustainable Societies

In the case of decentralized wastewater management, alternatives to conventional on-site treatment cost more and need additional maintenance. Therefore, if the town desires to overcome the wastewater challenge to smart growth, governance for sustainable societies is of great importance. Town governance will need to get involved and it is recommended that the town implements, operates and maintains the infrastructure. Furthermore, the town should provide guidance for the conversion of the village center into an ecological, economic and social settlement which includes concepts of co-habitation and eco-village living which have the potential to retain and support a new generation of inhabitants. Community members and institutions should seek to achieve a wholistic and sustainable society by supporting needed and supportive governance structures. The town is currently adding sidewalks to the village center and it is projects like this that will make the Colrain Village Center a better place to live, work and play.

Figure 78 | A Summary Of How The Different Elements Of The Proposal Address The Six Sustainable Development Goals Source: Compiled by Author, based on the goals outlined by Griggs et. al (2013)

CONCEPT INTEGRATION

Franklin County COLRAIN THE COLRAIN VILLAGE CENTER Charcoal

Forests

wood Wood

Occupied Town Properties

(Wood Stove By-product)

Lacking Functioning Septic System Alternatives

Green Waste

Influencing Factors

Water Conservation

Wastewater Barriers

Alternative Drainfields

Heat

(Willows)

Compost Phosphorous Fertilizer

Constructed Wetland

Expensive Renovations

Mound System

Population Decline

Biogas

(Heat/Electricity)

Sand Filter Dual System

(Biogas/Compost)

FertilizerNPK (Hayfields)

Triple System

Solar Electric & Solar Thermal

Extending the Lifespan of Functioning Septic Systems

Energy

Compost

Water Conservation

Energy

Proper Maintenance

Increased Driving

Vacant Properties

Sprawl

Vacant Land Loss of Ag. Land

Loss of Community Amenities

Wastewater Management Agriculture

Ag.

Stormwater Management

Public Amenities

Constructed Wetland/ Biofilter

Ag.

Healthy Ecosystems

Influencing Factor New Development

Aquifer Recharge

Reduce Flooding

Energy

Food

Property Reuse

Attract Young Adults (Repopulation)

Thriving Small Town Centers CONTRIBUTIONS

Water

Ecosystem

Livelihoods

89 Figure 79 | Concept Map Showing Sustainable Development Contributions And Investigations In Integrated Resource Management

7 CONCLUSION The challenges facing small towns are multifaceted and will require a great deal of creativity and innovation in order to overcome them. There are also no apparent and quick fix solutions. Specifically considering the wastewater challenge to smart growth, a number of different technologies are available which can resolve and/or suit the needs and specific conditions of small town centers, but they typically come at a higher cost to the property owner and require more maintenance. Therefore overcoming this challenge, even with existing technology, will require proper governance which supports and often owns and manages the infrastructure. While some towns, including Colrain, seem reluctant to get involved with providing and managing decentralized wastewater infrastructure, it is much better than the alternative, which is to do nothing and watch small community centers be abandoned or to continue the old paradigm of centralization which is not appropriate for small town centers facing population decline. Investigations of a number of different source separation and alternative technologies have been provided and their advantages and disadvantages have been discussed. While source separation offers a range of possibilities to produce heat, electricity and fertilizer, one of the most important drawbacks to implementation is public acceptance. On the contrary, media filters have proven successful in a number of small town centers in New England and constructed wetlands have proven successful in treating small town wastewater flows in cold climates in various countries in Europe. Therefore, further investigations into a system which combines single pass biofilters with subsurface constructed wetlands have been made. Results show that this system can meet the wastewater treatment needs of small towns in addition to adding value to communities by creating additional natural habitat which contributes to, rather than detracts from the

landscape. However, it has also been found that the application of such a system will first need to be piloted and tested within the Massachusetts context before implementation and second, it is believed that implementation may be limited, not by the spatial requirements of the system itself, but by the spatial requirements for effluent/outflow infiltration which is still limited by the capacity of the soil. The concept for a willow SAS system with drip irrigation, which has high evaporation potentials, should be investigated as a compliment to infiltration. If successful, regulations should support further reductions in SAS size, in addition to allowing for reductions if the effluent/outflow is reused for toilet flushing for example. Interestingly, the soils which prove challenging for septic systems, have been identified as prime farmland. This highlights an opportunity to integrate local agriculture in small town centers. Further investigations in energy have also shown that rooftops within the Colrain Village Center have the potential to meet 90% of the electricity needs of households. So while the production of heat and electricity from wastewater utilizing vacuum toilet technology as was attempted at the Flintenbreite, LĂźbeck settlement is not recommended, there are other opportunities for integrated resource management which can help add value to the Colrain Village Center, improve the image of vacant land and meet a portion of the dietary and energetic needs of inhabitants. In conclusion, integrated resource management can support the revitalization of small town centers, but small towns must also address the larger issue of urbanization and find ways to compete with the better paying jobs, more convenient shopping, and better access to public transportation which are available in urban areas. Yet once again, â&#x20AC;&#x153;There can be no urban sustainability, without rural sustainabilityâ&#x20AC;&#x153; (Rees, 2012, p. 260).

CONCLUSION

8 REFERENCES Ahuja, S. (2014). Water Reclamation and Sustainability. Elsevier. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press. Allan, J. A. (2005). Water in the environment/socio/economic development discourse: Sustainability, changing management paradigms and policy responses in a global system. Government and Opposition, 40(2), 181–199. Baystate Health. (n.d.). Baystate Medical Center | Springfield, MA. Retrieved January 9, 2016, from https://www.baystatehealth.org/locations/baystate-medical-center Biggs, E. M., Bruce, E., Boruff, B., Duncan, J. M. A., Horsley, J., Pauli, N., … Curnow, J. (2015). Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 389–397. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2003). The craft of research. University of Chicago press. BlackCarbon. (n.d.). BlackCarbon Unit (BC300). Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://blackcarbon. dk/Unit Brix, H., & Arias, C. A. (2005). Danish guidelines for small-scale constructed wetland systems for onsite treatment of domestic sewage. Water Science & Technology, 51(9), 1–9. Broncaccio, D. (2014). Group seeking to give Colrain’s Brick Meeting House the business, pp. 1–4. Chase, B. (2015). Warrant 2015. Clivus Multrum Inc. (2010). Composting Toilets and Greywater System Products and Services. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from http://www.clivusmultrum.com/products-services.php Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 292–305. Cordell, D. (2013). Peak phosphorus and the role of P recovery in achieving food security. Source Separation and Decentralization for Wastewater Management, 29–44. Cromartie, J., Reichert, C. Von, & Arthun, R. (2015). Factors Affecting Former Residents’ Returning to Rural Communities. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1844084/err185.pdf De Gisi, S., Petta, L., & Wendland, C. (2014). History and technology of Terra Preta sanitation. Sustainability, 6(3), 1328–1345. Department for International Development (DFID). (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods DHCA - The Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs. (2008). Wastewater Solutions 91

for VermontCommunities. Retrieved January 24, 2016 from http://accd.vermont.gov/sites/accd/ files/Documents/strongcommunities/cd/planning/DHCA%20WW%20Guide%20final.pdf DOER - The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. (2012). Renewable Energy Generation in Massachusetts. RPS/APS Annual Report. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.mass.gov/ eea/docs/eea/gwsa/alt-text-version-of-graphs/homepage-chart-7.pdf Editorial. (2014). Editorial: Colrain should move on sewer system. The Recorder. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from http://www.recorder.com/home/13288402-95/editorial-colrain-shouldmove-on-sewer-system EEA - The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (n.d.). Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit - Wastewater Alternatives. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.mass.gov/envir/ smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod-ww.html EIA - U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2015). Massachusetts - Rankings: Average Retail Price of Electricity to Residential Sector. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from http://www.eia.gov/state/ rankings/?sid=MA#series/31 Elizares, L., & Lane, E. (2012). Franklin County Farmland & Foodshed Study. Retrieved from https:// issuu.com/conwaydesign/docs/franklincounty20120522_hires Erisman, J. W., & Larsen, T. A. (2013). Nitrogen economy of the 21st century. Source Separation and Decentralization for Wastewater Management. London: IWA Publishing, 45–58. Faggio, G., & Silva, O. (2014). Self-employment and entrepreneurship in urban and rural labour markets. Journal of Urban Economics, 84, 67–85. FEMA - Federal Emergency Managment Agency. (1980). Flood Insurance Rate Map. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/ Ferguson, G., Dakers, A., & Gunn, I. (2003). Sustainable wastewater management: a handbook for smaller communities. Ministry for the Environment. Franklin County Planning Department. (1990). The Town of Colrain Master Plan. FRCOG - Franklin Regional Council of Governments. (2013). Sustainable Franklin County: Franklin County’s Regional Plan for Sustainable Development. FRCOG - Franklin Regional Council of Governments. (2014). Town of Colrain: Center Village Master Plan. Friedler, E., Butler, D., & Alfiya, Y. (2013). Wastewater composition. In T. A. Larsen, K. M. Udert, & J. Lienert (Eds.), Source separation and decentralization for wastewater management. (pp. 241–257). IWA Publishing, London, UK. Fox, K. (2013). Town of Colrain Select Board Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2013. Retrieved from http://colrain-ma.gov/documents/SelectBoard/Selectmensmins9913.pdf Global Water Partnership (2000). Integrated water resources management. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Retrieved January 2, 2016, from http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/ handle/10535/4986/TACNO4.PDF?sequence=1. Golden, C. (2015). How STUs Can Be Used For New Construction and Upgrades. MassDEP MEHA - On-site Wastewater for Local Environmental Health Officials. Retrieved from http://www. mehaonline.net/seminars/2015/ww_STUsRemedialGeneralUse.pdf DavidGuidance Sheets. Retrieved from http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/ section2.pdf

REFERENCES

Halweil, B., & Nierenberg, D. (2010). State of the World 2011: Innovations that nourish the planet. World Watch Institute. Hoffmann, H., Platzer, C., Winker, M., & von Münch, E. (2011). Technology review of constructed wetlands: Subsurface flow constructed wetlands for greywater and domestic wastewater treatment. Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Sustainable Sanitation - Ecosan Program, 36. JENSSEN, P.D., GREATOREX, J.M., WARNER, W. S., (Editor) (2004): Sustainable Wastewater Management in Urban Areas. (= Kapitel 4. Kurs WH33, Konzeptionen dezentralisierter Abwasserreinigung und Stoffstrommanagement). Hannover: University of Hannover. Jenssen, P. D., Mæhlum, T., Krogstad, T., & Vråle, L. (2005). High performance constructed wetlands for cold climates. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 40(6-7), 1343–1353. Johansson, M., Jönsson, H., Höglund, C., Richert Stintzing, A., & Rodhe, L. (2001). Urine separation– closing the nutrient cycle. Johnson, K. M. (2012). Rural demographic change in the new century: Slower growth, increased diversity. Durham, NH: Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire. Jonsson, H., & Vinneras, B. (2013). Closing the loop: recycling nutrients to agriculture. Source Separation and Decentralization for Wastewater Management. Edited by TA Larsen, K. Udert, and J. Lienert. IWA Publishing, London, UK, 163–178. Joubert, L., Flinker, P., Loomis, G., Dow, D., Gold, A., Brennan, D., & Jobin, J. (2004). Creative community design and wastewater management. Prepared for the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project by University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension. Lienert, J. (2013). High acceptance of source-separating technologies, but. In Source Separation and Decentralization for Wastewater Management. IWA Publishing London. Larsen, T. A., Udert, K. M., & Lienert, J. (2013). Source separation and decentralization for wastewater management. IWA Publishing. Larsen, T. A., & Gujer, W. (1996). Separate management of anthropogenic nutrient solutions (human urine). Water Science and Technology, 34(3), 87–94. Mallach, A. (2006). Bringing buildings back: From abandoned properties to community assets: A guidebook for policymakers and practitioners. Rutgers University Press. Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. (2016). State Energy Officials Announce Five New Communities to Participate in Solar Program. Retrieved from http://www.masscec.com/about-masscec/news/ state-energy-officials-announce-five-new-communities-participate-solar-program Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. (2015). Rainfall Program: Precipitation Database. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dcr/water-res-protection/water-datatracking/rainfall-program.html Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (2010). Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020.Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/energy/2020-cleanenergy-plan.pdf MASS DEP - Massachusetts Department of the Environment. (2003). Source Water Assessment and Protection ( SWAP ) Report for Colrain Fire District # 1. MASS DEP - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (2009). 314 CMR 20.00: The State Environmental Code, Reclaimed Water Permit Program And Standards. Retrieved from http:// www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/service/regulations/314cmr20.pdf 93

MASS DEP - Massachusetts Department of the Environment. (2013). Technology Approval Process for I/A Systems. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/wastewater/ massdeps-technology-approval-process-for-ia-systems.html MASS DEP - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (2014a). 310 CMR 15.000: The State Environmental Code, Title 5: Standard Requirements for the Siting, Construction, Inspection, Upgrade and Expansion of On-Site Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems and for the Transport and Disposal of Septage. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/ regulations/310-cmr-15-00-septic-systems-title-5.html MASS DEP - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (2014b). HOUSE Docket No. 4375. MA DEP - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (2015). Standard Conditions for Secondary Treatment Units Certified for General Use. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/ docs/dep/water/wastewater/o-thru-v/scstugu.pdf MDPH - Massachusetts Department of Public Health. (2010). Health of Massachusetts. Boston, MA. Mass DOT - Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2003). Transportation Data Management System: Location ID: 250672 GREENFIELD ROAD. Retrieved August 9, 2015, from http://mhd.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Mhd&mod= MassGIS - Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information. (2015). Commonwealth of Massachusetts, MassIT. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/layerlist.html Massachusetts Historical Commision. (2006). National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Colrain Center Historic District. Retrieved from http://mhc-macris.net/Details. aspx?MhcId=COL.A Mayer, P. W., DeOreo, W. B., Opitz, E. M., Kiefer, J. C., Davis, W. Y., Dziegielewski, B., & Nelson, J. O. (1999). Residential end uses of water. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association Denver, CO. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Paradigm | Definition. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from http://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm Metcalf & Eddy. (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment Disposal Reuse. (G. Tchobanoglous, F. L. Burton, & H. D. Stensel, Eds.). McGraw-Hill, New York. Mishkovsky, N., Dalbey, M., Bertaina, S., Read, A., & McGalliard, T. (2010). Putting smart growth to work in rural communities. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Montgomery, D. R. (2012). Dirt: the erosion of civilizations. Univ of California Press. Morel, A., & Diener, S. (2006). Greywater management in low and middle-income countries. Review of Different Treatment Systems for Households or Neighborhoods. National Environmental Services Center. (2004). Maintaining Your Septic Systemâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;A Guide For Homeowners. Pipeline, 15(4), 1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;8. NSFC - National Small Flows Clearinghouse. (2000). Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems. Pipeline, 11(4). Newman, P., & Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as sustainable ecosystems: principles and practices. Island Press. NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration. (n.d.). Climate at a Glance | National

REFERENCES

Centers for Environmental Information. Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://www.ncdc.noaa. gov/cag/time-series/us/19/1/tavg/ytd/12/1928-2015?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1928&lastbasey ear=2015 NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.). Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). January to December. Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/19/1/tavg/1/12/1928-2015?base_prd=true&first baseyear=2015&lastbaseyear=2015&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1928&lasttrendye ar=2015 Novotny, V., Ahern, J., & Brown, P. (2010). Water centric sustainable communities: planning, retrofitting and building the next urban environment. John Wiley & Sons. Orenco Systems Inc. (2015). An Affordable Wastewater Collection and Treatment Solution for Municipalities and Communities: Case Study - Amesville, OHIO. Otterpohl, R. (n.d.). Presentation: Ecological Sanitation: high-, medium and low-tech solutions. Retrieved from http://slideplayer.com/slide/4827282/ Otterpohl, R., Albold, A., & Oldenburg, M. (1998). Differentiating management resource of water and waste in urban areas. In Internet conference on integrated bio-systems (ICIBS). pp (pp. 1–18). Otterpohl, R., Wendland, C., & Bettendorf, T. (2015). Terra Preta Sanitation 1 - Background, Principles and Innovations. (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, Ed.). OtterWasser GmbH (2009). Ecological housing estate, Flintenbreite, Lübeck, Germany - Draft. Case study of sustainable sanitation projects. Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA) Patrie, Lois McClellan. (1974). A History of Colrain Massachusetts with genealogies of early families. Troy, NY. Rees, William. (2012). Cities as dissipative structures: Global change and the vulnerability of urban civilization. In Sustainability Science (pp. 247–273). Springer. Rees & Wackernagel (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—And why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. doi:10.1016/S01959255(96)00022-4 Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., … Schellnhuber, H. J. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. Rodale Institute. (2013). Water Purification: Innovative On-Site Wastewater Treatment. Retrieved on March 25, 2016 from http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/waterPurification.pdf Schoeman, J., Allan, C., & Finlayson, C. M. (2014). A new paradigm for water? A comparative review of integrated, adaptive and ecosystem-based water management in the Anthropocene. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 377–390. Schuetze, T., & Santiago-Fandiño, V. (2014). Terra Preta Sanitation: A Key Component for Sustainability in the Urban Environment. Sustainability, 6(11), 7725–7750. Sharma, A. K., Tjandraatmadja, G., Grant, A. L., Grant, T., & Pamminger, F. (2010). Sustainable sewerage servicing options for peri-urban areas with failing septic systems. Water Science & Technology, 62(3). Small, C., & Nicholls, R. J. (2003). A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. Journal of Coastal Research, 584–599. Smart Growth Network. (n.d.). Smart Growth Principles. Retrieved March 07, 2014, from http:// www.smartgrowth.org/principles/transportation.php 95

Solarize Mass Shelburne-Colrain-Conway. (2016). Solarize Mass Shelburne-ColrainConway | Frequently asked questions. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from https:// solarizemassshelburnecolrainconway.wordpress.com/frequently-asked-questions/ Swilling, M., Robinson, B., Marvin, S., & Hodson, M. (2013). City-Level Decoupling: Urban resource flows and the governace of infrastructure transitions. United Nations Environment Programme. Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, P., & Zurbrügg, C. (2014). Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies. Eawag. Town of Colrain. (2006). Application for Building Permit. Town of Colrain. (2012). Town of Colrain, Massachusetts Protective Zoning Bylaw (Vol. 2012). Tchobanoglous, G., & Leverenz, H. (2013). The rationale for decentralization of wastewater infrastructure. In T. A. Larsen, K. M. Udert, & J. Lienert (Eds.), Source separation and decentralization for wastewater management. (pp. 101–115). IWA Publishing, London, UK. Tjandraatmadja, G., Sharma, A. K., Grant, T., & Pamminger, F. (2013). A decision support methodology for integrated urban water management in remote settlements. Water Resources Management, 27(2), 433–449. Tjandraatmadja, G., Sharma, A. K., Grant, T., & Pamminger, F. (2013). A decision support methodology for integrated urban water management in remote settlements. Water Resources Management, 27(2), 433–449. TTZ; TUHH; NETSSAF - Technologie-Transfer-Zentrum; Technischen Universität Hamburg; Network for the development of Sustainable approaches for Large Scale Implementation of Sanitation in Africa (n.d.). Criteria for the Assessment of Sanitation Technologies. Bremerhaven: NETSSAF. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_ attachments/4C4_Criteria_for_the_assessment_of_sanitation_technologies%20(6).pdf UMDI - UMass Donahue Institute. (n.d.). Massachusetts Population Projections. Retrieved June 3, 2015, from http://pep.donahue-institute.org/ United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/ RES/1325(2000) United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects, the 2014 Revision. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2005.12.9 UN DESA - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2015). World Population Prospects - Population Division. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DataQuery/ UN DESA - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2011). Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and Development: An International Perspective. UN-Habitat (2011). Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements 2011. (ISBN: 978-1-84971-371-9). London,Washington, DC. Earthscan. Retrieved, from http://www.unhabitat.org/ downloads/docs/GRHS2011_Full.pdf ( 11.02.2014). US Census Bureau. (1990). United States Urban and Rural Population: 1790 to 1990. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html US Census Bureau (1800-2010). Census of Population and Housing. Census of Population 18002010. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html US Census Bureau. (2005-2009). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. S1501: Educational Attainment - Colrain town, Franklin County, Massachusetts & Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://

REFERENCES

factfinder.census.gov US Census Bureau. (2010a). 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria Percent Urban and Rural in 2010 by State. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ ua/urban-rural-2010.html US Census Bureau (2010b). DP-1-Geography-Colrain town, Franklin County, Massachusetts & Massachusetts: Profile of General Population and Housing & QT-P1-Geography-ZCTA5 01340 & Massachusetts: Age Groups and Sex: 2010 Characteristics: 2010. Retrieved from http://factfinder. census.gov/ US Census Bureau. (2010-2014). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. DP03: Selected Economic Characteristics, S1701 Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months - Colrain town, Franklin County, Massachusetts & Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov US Census Bureau. (2012a). United States Summary: 2010 Population and Housing Unit Counts. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-1.pdf US Census Bureau. (2012b). Selected Appendixes: 2010 Population and Housing Unit Counts (Vol. CPH-2-A). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-a.pdf US Census Bureau. (n.d.b). Population Estimates - County Totals Datasets: Population, Population Change and Estimated Componenets of Population Change: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/popest/data/counties/totals/2012/CO-EST2012-alldata.html USDA - US Department of Agriculture. (2007). 2007 Census of Agriculture County Profile - Franklin County Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_ Highlights/County_Profiles/Massachusetts/cp25011.pdf USDA - United States Department of Agriculture (2010). Strategic Plan FY 2010-2015, 1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;50. doi:10.1037/e583052010-001 USDA - United States Department of Agriculture. (2014). Rural America at a Glance: 2014 Edition. USDA-ERS Economic Brief. USDA - United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). Rural America America At A Glance. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1952235/eib145.pdf USDA NRCS - US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2015). Custom Soil Resource Report for Franklin, County, Massachusetts (Custom Map for the Colrain Village Center). Retrieved from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2013). State Energy Data 2013: Production. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_prod/pdf/P2.pdf U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2009). Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). Consumption & Expenditures Tables: CE2.2 Fuel consumption Totals and averages, Northeast homes, CE2.7 Fuel expenditures Totals and averages, Northeast homes & CE3.2 End-use consumption Totals and averages, Northeast homes Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www. eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.cfm?view=consumption#undefined US EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). Small Wastewater Systems: Alternative Systems for Small Communities and Rural Areas. US EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1996). Wastewater Treatment: Alternatives to Septic Systems. US EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems. 97

US EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Water and Wastewater. Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/state/topics/water.html Van Leeuwen, E., Nijkamp, P., & de Noronha Vaz, T. (2013). Towns in a Rural World. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Vymazal, J., & Kröpfelová, L. (2011). A three-stage experimental constructed wetland for treatment of domestic sewage: first 2 years of operation. Ecological Engineering, 37(1), 90–98. Vymazal, J. (2010). Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Water, 2(3), 530–549. Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J., Moran, D., Goldfinger, S., & Thomas, M. (2006). The ecological footprint of cities and regions: comparing resource availability with resource demand. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 103–112. Wendland, C. (2008). Anerobic Digestion of Blackwater and Kitchen Refuse. Technische Universität Hamburg-Harbug. Wendland, C., Deegener, S., Behrendt, J., Toshev, P., & Otterpohl, R. (2007). Anaerobic digestion of blackwater from vacuum toilets and kitchen refuse in a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR). Water Science & Technology, 55(7). Western Massachusetts Scenic Byways Marketing Committee. (2015). Route 112 | Western Massachusetts Scenic Byways. Retrieved June 3, 2015, from http://www.bywayswestmass.com/ byways/route-112 Weston & Sampson. (2014). Town Center Sanitary Sewer Preliminary Engineering Report. WCED - World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. The Brundtland Commission. Wuthnow, R. (2013). Small-town America: Finding community, shaping the future. Princeton University Press. Yu, Z. L. T., Rahardianto, A., DeShazo, J. R., Stenstrom, M. K., & Cohen, Y. (2013). Critical review: regulatory incentives and impediments for onsite graywater reuse in the United States. Water Environment Research, 85(7), 650–662.

REFERENCES

9 APPENDIX

Image 19 |Town Selectman Jack Cavolick In His Chicken Coop // Photo: Author (2015)

APPENDIX

INTERVIEW SUMMARIES Methods | Various interviews were conducted in Colrain, MA and in the surrounding area. Further interviews were later conducted in Germany. The date, time, place and individuals present during each interview are noted. The interviews were unstructured, but the purpose of each interview and the various topics/aspects which were elaborated upon are highlighted in the following summaries. The interviews provided flexibility in obtaining up-to date information in addition to engaging community members and relevant stakeholders and/or experts from broad fields. These interviews helped gauge the direction and focus of the research. It also provided a means to collect information about peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s views, perceptions and attitudes.

The community is hesitant when it comes to large centralized infrastructure, be it large photovoltaic arrays or centralized wastewater infrastructure. Appropriate scale considerations are necessary.

Overview of Results | In addition to contributing specific information, the interviews established the following: The Colrain village center lacks community space, community services, parking and pedestrian accessibility. A number of buildings are in various stages of disarray and will face demolition in the future if they are not maintained and repaired. 1

2 It is believed that a lack of wastewater infrastructure is a deterrent to supporting growth, expanding services and rehabilitating buildings. However, the community is unsure how to proceed. There are a number of doubts concerning the current proposal recommending a sewer extension to an existing private wastewater treatment plant. Further alternative proposals are needed.

The potential for biogas production from farm/animal waste is minimal considering the fact that natural/organic fertilizer is in short supply. 3

Currently, there are no incentives for water conservation or greywater recycling. 4

APPENDIX | INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

100

Colrain Town Coordinator | Kevin Fox Date: July 8, 2015 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Colrain Town Office, Colrain, MA Others Present: Colrain Highway Superintendent | Scott Sullivan Planning Board Member | Jonathan Lagreze Long-Time Village Center Resident| Joan McQuade Town Electrical Inspector | Jim Slowinsky Purpose |Obtain a general overview of activities involving the village center and introduce the thesis project. Colrain Village Grant Overview | Colrain received a $2.5 million grant for the development of an appropriate wastewater treatment system for the village center. The proposal which was recommended as part of a feasibility study completed by Weston & Sampson involves the connection of the village sewer district to Barnhardt Manufacturing, a cotton and foam manufacturing plant which treats its own wastewater. The plants current wastewater load remains well below capacity. Kevin Fox stated that the grant is available for up to ten years giving the town time to assess and decide upon an appropriate solution. The project is on hold at the moment because the community is divided as to how best to proceed. Questions remain as to whether this proposal is appropriate for such a small town center. The town is also not sure how to fund the additional approximately $2 million that will be needed in addition to the $2.5 million grant. There are concerns that it will be difficult to form a private/public partnership agreement with Barnhardt Manufacturing Company. Complications include the fact that Barnhardt currently accepts wastewater from the nearby Griswoldsville village for free and that no formal agreements between Griswoldswille village and Barnhardt have been established. Furthermore, if the Barnhardt leaves town, Griswoldsville is left without a place to discharge their wastewater Another grant that affects the village center is a $1.5 million grant from The Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Complete Streets Program. Weston & Sampson is working on plans to reconfigure the main intersection in town, add pedestrian 101

sidewalks/crosswalks and bicycle shoulders. The project is scheduled for completion in 2018. The Jacksonville Road Bridge which connects the Elementary School with the village center, has been deemed structurally deficient and will be replaced with a new one. Construction is due to begin this year. The project will include the addition of pedestrian sidewalks along one side of the bridge, will include supports under the bridge for possible wastewater infrastructure which could connect the Colrain School in the future. The bridge will be elevated to withstand future flooding during storm events. Another Local Town with Similar Wastewater Problems| Conway, MA Dairy Farming & Biogas I Scott Sullivan mentioned that the Hagers Dairy Farm was thinking of setting up a biogas digester, but the Hager’s just sold all their dairy cows, so that is no longer a possibility. Two other dairy farms in the town have also recently been sold including the Shearer’s and Avery’s. The remaining dairy farms, include Bob Purington’s Woods Longs Farm, Kenny Herzig’s Farm, Dean Robert’s Farm, Karen Herzig’s farm on Combs Hill, Hilman’s goat dairy farm, Scott Sullivan’s Barn and Mayor Scrantons Farm. Previously, before recent dairy farm sales, Colrain had the most dairy farms than any other town in the state of Massachusetts. Climate Change and Town Bridges | It is believed that the presence of debris under the aforementioned bridge worsened the flooding that occurred on River Street during the Hurricane Irene, affecting the village center. However, because of endangered species and EPA protection the town was not able to clean out the debris until a declaration of emergency was made during the storm. Scott Sullivan mentioned that Colrain has 26 bridges to maintain which is difficult for a small town. Suggested Contacts: Colrain Planning Board Member | Sara Wik Local Dairy Farmer | Bob Purington Weston & Sampson Engineer | Anthony DeSimone Griswoldsville Sewer District | Norm Ward Barhnhart Manufacturing |Mark Thibideau Town of Conway l Joe Strzegowski

Date: July 23, 2015 Time: 11:00 a.m. Place: Colrain Town Office, Colrain, MA Others Present: Colrain Board of Health | Michael Friedlander Purpose | Return wastewater documentation and material that was provided by the town. Historic Buildings, Small Lots and Wastewater Infrastructure | A discussion of the 200 year old Blue Block, an apartment building at the center of the village took place. The town voted to buy and demolish the building because town residents believed it would be too costly to repair and lacks a functioning septic system and/or enough land to build an appropriate system. However, before the town was able to buy the apartment building, the building was sold to artist, Denis Bordeaux from neighboring Greenfield. Michael Friedlander was just at the building site and took a first look at the existing conditions. He was doubtful that the existing septic system would be able to be reutilized to suit the needs of the building and whether the existing septic system was even on Blue Block property. According to the building code, a septic system must serve the number of bedrooms that exist in the building even if only one person lives there. It was recommended to get in touch with Shawn Kimberly, the Colrain Building Inspector because he runs his own civil engineering practice and has designed some of the septic systems for different residences in the Village Center. Suggested Contacts: Colrain Building Inspector & Civil Engineer | Shawn Kimberly Suggested Events: Public Meeting Village Center Intersection Redesign | August 13, 2015

Image 20 |Colrain Sewer District Files Photo: Author (2015)

APPENDIX | INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

102

103

Image 21 |One of the Homes In The Conway Village Center // Photo: Author (2015)

Planning Board Chair and Conway Wastwater Committee Member | Joe Strzegowski Date: August 3, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Conway Town Office, Conway, MA Purpose | Get an overview of another small town with wastewater infrastructure needs. Similarities with Colrain | The town of Conway has a similar population to Colrain, and its town center is also located along a scenic byway, developed along a river and has small lots and a lack of community wastewater infrastructure. Conway, like Colrain, would like to support more business development in the town center and would like to give vehicular traffic more reasons to stop. Differences with Colrain| Currently a number of small businesses exist, whereas in Colrain no businesses currently exist. Conway also has sidewalks and crosswalks whereas Colrain does not. Conway is perceived to have more open space than Colrain as well. Each parcel in Conway has a well and a septic system, whereas in Colrain, most households are serviced by a community well. By law these systems are supposed to be 100 feet apart, yet it is likely that many of the parcels in Conway do not meet this standard. Conway does not have state funding to implement a system like Colrain does. Wastewater Status | The town is looking into different wastewater treatment solutions to support the town center and economic growth. Most of the town centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s septic systems were installed in 1971, in order to meet the requirements of the reorganization of the U.S. Clean Water Act in 1972. Currently, one or two of the town center septic systems are failing and one Package Treatment Plant, by Orenco Systems, has been installed because of a failing septic system and limited space because of its small lot. The town is looking into installing two neighborhood leachfields where the effluent from individual septic tanks can be transported to two different community disposal fields. Preliminary estimates are approximately $1 million/leachfield. However the town has not yet completed a Feasibility Study so this is a rough estimate. The town decided to work with White Engineering based out of Pittsfield, MA because they have experience in affordable wastewater solutions for small communities.

Wastewater Regulations | When the design flow for a leachfield is greater than 10,000 gallons/ day a groundwater discharge permit is needed from the State. The town would like to avoid this because of its intensive process and higher cost. The town believes that if two leachfields are constructed and kept separate, treating less than 10,000 gallons/day each, the permitting can remain with the local board of health and abide by regulations set by Title 5. Regarding minimum design flow, Title 5 stipulates that the minimum design flow per household is three bedrooms, yet for mixed use the minimum design flow is based on square footage. This means that, contrary to assumptions, the design flow for a community does not necessarily go up if households are converted to mixed and commercial uses. Town Financing | Currently, the town has different community financing programs which Colrain does not. The town has adopted the Community Preservation Act, which enables Conway to raise funds (currently a 3% taxpayer surcharge) to fund open space preservation, the preservation of historic resources, the development of affordable housing and the acquisition and development of outdoor recreational facilities. Conway has also gained its designation as a Green Community in Massachusetts, which means that the town can qualify for grants which help finance energy efficiency and renewable energy projects within the town. Suggested Contacts: Managing Professional Engineer at White Engineering Inc. | Brent White, MCE, PE

APPENDIX | INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

104

Wastewater Process Project Manager at Weston & Sampson | Anthony DeSimone, P.E. Date: August 10, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Online (Blue Jeans Video Conference) Purpose |Discuss the Weston & Sampson Town Center Sanitary Sewer Preliminary Engineering Report for the Town of Colrain. Town Center Sanitary Sewer Preliminary Engineering Report Clarifications and Comments | 1 Wellheads in Massachusetts are protected by a radius of 100 feet. If the radius is larger it often indicates that the well is state water resource. If a well and a septic system are too close together, nitrates can cause Blue Baby Syndrome. 2 Most of the soils in the area are considered to have limited septic suitability. 3 Failed septic systems are determined by their pump rates and this information can be found in a towns health records. Usually a system fails because of two reasons: the first being that the soil does not perk well and the second being that the leach fields are spent and should be replaced with free draining soil. 4 In Massachusetts, in order for a house to be sold, the building’s septic system must meet Title 5 standards. One option might be for a household with a failed septic tank to install a small package treatment plant. However these systems are expensive and according to DeSimone drawbacks include the fact that homeowners have a difficult time maintaining them. Also, if something goes wrong and needs to be fixed, it is often very expensive. DeSimone suggested to contact Bradley Furlon who has experience maintaining package treatment plants and does not promote their installation. 5 The reason that the school is not considered in the initial proposal may be because the school believes their septic system is fine, however health records show that it is pumped out frequently. DeSimone also thinks that they do not want to be considered part of the initial project because the school may cease operation because of low attendance and because the school, if connected would make up around 50% of the flow into the system and therefore might be required to cover 50% of the cost. 6 A Variable Slope Gravity (option 2B) system connection to Barnhardt Manufacturing is recommended because additional homes can tie into a gravity system, but not into a system 105

with a force main, increasing the possible number of connections. 7 Although one of the concerns that the community has about connecting to the Barnhardt Plant is that if Barnhardt leaves, so does their wastewater treatment plant, but DeSimone states that wouldn’t be a problem and half of the facility could be shut down and still reengineered to treat the remaining wastewater flow. 8 He does not recommend a community septic system (Option 3) - because they don’t work very well especially when restaurants are part of the system. The oils and grease produced by restaurants can be a big issue and rags and other households products can get flushed into the system causing problems. Source Separation | DeSimone doesn’t know of a project here in the United States which has installed source separation or vacuum toilet systems. He believes it would be difficult because for a community such as Colrain, new toilets and pipes would have to be installed in the individual households. Quotes | “The cheapest solution might be to buy all the buildings in the town, tear them down and turn the area into a park, but this would be political suicide” - Anthony DeSimone Suggested Contacts: Hoosac Water Quality District Chief Operator | Bradley Furlon Other Relevant Small Town Wastewater Projects | The Town of Monroe, Massachusetts

Rich Earth Institute Founder | Date: August 12, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Rich Earth Institute, Brattleboro, VT Purpose | To gain information, resources and local contacts who have experience with source separation - specifically urine diversion and treatment - in theory and practice. Rich Earth Institute Overview | The first legally authorized and publicly documented non-profit and community-scale urine reuse project in the United States. The organization completes research and field trials with urine. Urine from volunteer participants is collected and applied to fertilize hay fields. Data about the effects it has on the soil and the harvest is also collected and analyzed. Urine remains a focus because it has the majority of plant nutrients that can be found in human waste. Research states that 1,000 gallons of urine can fertilize one acre of hay. The benefit is that you do not need that many farmers to use a large amount of urine, but the drawback is that transport and application can be a cumbersome because of the large volume. Suggested Contact Details | Adele Franks => Was able to get a permit for a urine diverting toilet for a community garden in Florence, MA. 2 Catherine Bryars => Has worked with the Rich Earth Institute and has investigated the regulatory side of PeeCycling and Cape Cod Eco-Sanitation. 3 Earle Barnhart and Hilde Maingay => Support projects that demonstrate ecologically-derived forms of 1

Image 22 |Collected Urine Photo: Author (2015)

Kim Nace

energy, agriculture, aquaculture, housing, and landscapes, and how people can live in harmony with nature at the Green Center in Falmouth, MA. 4 Curt Spalding => Administrator for EPA’s New England Region who has done work with the Rich Earth Institute. 5 Molly Danielsson => The nonprofit organization, Recode, where Molly Danielsson works was an invaluable asset in the campaign for legalizing greywater reuse in Oregon. 6 Ben Goldberg => Compost Toilet Installations Quote | “A year’s worth of urine from one adult contains enough fertilizer to grow 320 pounds of wheat - enough for a loaf of bread a day” - Kim Nace Suggested Contacts: Board Member of Grow Food Northampton | Adele Franks Pee-cycling Regulation | Catherine Bryars The Green Center | Earle Barnhart and Hilde Maingay New England EPA Administrator | Curt Spalding Recode Program Director | Molly Danielsson Composting Toilet Manufacturer | Ben Goldberg Further Reading: 2012 Green Plumbing Code Mechanical Code Supplement | International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) The Big Necessity, The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why it Matters | Rose George Liquid Gold, The Lore and Logic of Using Urine to Grow Plants |Carol Steinfeld

Image 23 | Underground Urine Storage Tank Photo: Author (2015)

APPENDIX | INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

106

Image 24 | Shared Solar Electric System at Katywil Alongside A Family Of Pigs // Photo: Author (2015)

Katywil Farm Community Founder | Date: August 11, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Katywil Farm Community, Colrain, MA Purpose | The project is located in Colrain and is a local example which integrates energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable land use. Project Initiation | Bill Cole grew up on a poor small farm in Virginia and it has always been his dream to start a co-housing community. When choosing a location, he liked the tolerance of the North and knew of beautiful Berkshire County, but not of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;hilltownsâ&#x20AC;? in Franklin County until he visited a friend in Conway. Shortly later, a large property in Colrain which had not been farmed since 1963 was for sale. He exclaims that it was one of the most beautiful places heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d ever been in his life so he bought the property and moved to it in 2005. The concept of the eco-village and acceptance from the town took four years, after which time the community voted unanimously to allow the development to take place. Katywil Farm Community Project Overview | The property has a total of 112 acres, of which 14 acres are dedicated to the clustered housing, 20 acres are fields and the remaining 78 acres are forest. Currently, the community consists of nine homes, with families and adults from around the country, but six out of households are originally from Massachusetts. Nine more 107

Bill Cole

lots are available. The first house was built on the property in 2008. All homes are built under the premise of cradle to grave, meaning that the first floor is handicap accessible with two bedrooms, one for the tenant and one for an in home caretaker. All homes have south facing exposure to maximize passive solar gains, are energy efficient and utilize various sustainable technologies such as heat pumps, geothermal, solar thermal and solar electric. Some homes have joined together to build their own solar electric array to generate energy. Residents share a community garden, a tractor and are interested in building a barn together. Each household has their own compost system set up on their property as well. Many fruit and nut trees can also be seen and the community has goats, turkeys and pigs. There were chickens, but the farm community is also home to a family of foxes and the foxes found themselves above chickens on the food chain. Data on energy savings and energy production have not been assessed. The project was built at a relatively high elevation, away from flood zones and rivers, as a form of protection from the long-term impacts of climate change. When wells were being put in place on the property, the technicians were surprised by the cleanliness of the water. This is likely because there is no development above them, just forest lands. Perspectives of the Colrain Village| Bill Cole feels that the role of the community has become

less important and that the social fabric is disappearing. He feels that this can be seen in Colrain Center where people donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know their neighbors and there is a lack of community space where the community can gather. He also mentioned that the Colrain village center was developed in times when the community thrived on a water based economy. He also mentioned that Colrain is one of the top three towns for water in the state.

and infrastructure that is provided. This can be too expensive for young couples and families. However, in the Colrain Village Center the values of homes are more affordable. Suggested Contacts: Colrain Town Selectman and Colrain Center Village Resident | Jack Cavolick

Cost Differences Between the Colrain Village and Drawbacks | A lot at Katywil costs around $110,000 to help cover the cost of the land

Image 25 |View Of Katywil Farm Community Photo: Author (2015)

APPENDIX | INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

108

Colrain Building Inspector and Civil Engineer at S.K. Kimberly Engineering | Shawn Kimberly Date: August 12, 2015 Time: 6:00 p.m. Place: Colrain Town Hall, Colrain, MA Purpose | To gain knowledge from a professional engineer who has designed septic systems for residences and for the Library in the Colrain Village Center. He has local knowledge of different parcel perk rates and soils. Soils | According to perk tests on the different lots he has worked on, the online classification according to the results of the custom soil resource report for the Colrain Village Center, from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are accurate, but there are some discrepancies regarding soil locations. According to the report, the soils in the Village Center are primarily Agawam fine sandy loam and Scio silt loam with grades from 0-8%. Septic and Greywater Systems | A septic system is

Image 26 |The Outhouse Is Still Visible In The Architecture Of This Home Photo: Author (2015)

109

designed given the soil characteristics which can be identified by completing a perk test at the site and the number of bedrooms. Once a septic system fails, the owner has two years to fix the problem. Greywater Systems need an installation and operation permit and if implemented the daily flow can be reduced. Historic Reference | A traditional farm house had an outhouse to treat waste, which was a system based on common sense. Now regulations have higher demands for waste management which are difficult to meet and cost intensive. Historic Building Maintenance | The Library is one of the only buildings in town that has been taken care of throughout its history and it is believed that this is because the building has a task force which maintains the building. This has not been the case of other historic buildings in the town. Quote | â&#x20AC;&#x153;Regulations put Engineers in a box and as an engineer you have to stay in that boxâ&#x20AC;? Shawn Kimberly

Franklin County Council of Regional Governments Senior Land Use Planner | Patricia Smith Date: August 13, 2015 Time: 11:00 a.m. Place: FRCOG, Greenfield, MA Purpose | To discuss the Colrain Village Master Plan which was written by Patricia Smith and discuss the towns future and next steps. Wastewater and Economic Development | Fifty percent of the community would like to tear down the buildings which have failing systems and no space for a on-site septic system and create more open space and fifty percent of the community would like to see the town center with a centralized system to support the

economic development and revitalization of historic structures in the village center. Quote | “The town has two options: paying for infrastructure or paying for decay.” - Patricia Smith Suggested Contacts: FRCOG Regional Board of Health Agent | Glen Ayers FRCOG Transportation & GIS Program Manager | Maureen Mullaney DOER Green Communities Regional Manager | Jim Barry Franklin County Regional Housing and Redevelopment Authority (FCRHRA) | MJ Adams Charlemont Planning Board Member | Gisela Walker

Franklin County Council of Regional Governments Regional Health Agent | Glen Ayers Date: August 19, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: FRCOG, Greenfield, MA. Purpose | To find out what greywater projects have been completed in the area and the status of greywater regulations in Massachusetts. The local health board is in charge of permitting greywater systems under Title 5. Greywater System Implementation in MA |Right now the state offers no incentive for greywater system installations. The State also doesn’t offer any clear regulations or guidelines to follow. If installed, they tend to be expensive and need to go through a rigorous permitting process. Also, technical assistance regarding greywater is hard to find. However, The Rural Water Association in Northfield does offer some technical assistance. As far as local examples, an outdoor shower greywater system was permitted at RedGate Farm, in Buckland MA and another greywater system was put in by Gisela and Tony Walker in Shelburne Falls. Glen Ayers does not know of any other successful examples. Yet, he does know of a constructed wetland in Leverett, MA which failed because its liner leaked. Local civil engineers include Doug McCleay and Shawn Kimberly and they are hesitant when it comes to

the design of unconventional systems. Composting Toilets | Using composting toilets can achieve a 40-50% reduction in the size of a leachfield because of the associated flow reduction. However, everything else must still go to a septic tank. Clivus (based in MA) composting toilets and greywater systems have been installed in the area. Pheonix Composting toilets were also mentioned. Other Local Towns with Wastewater Problems | 1 The town of Ashfield installed John Todd’s Living Machine Technology for their WWTP, but the project failed and has been a financial burden to the town. This project now runs as a conventional WWTP. 2 Charlemont, is currently loosing around $50,000/year because 50% of the connections to the WWTP are dead. Since there is not enough flow, the WWTP is running at a loss. Suggested Contacts: New England Onsite Wastewater Training Program Center Director (University of Rhode Island) | George Loomis MassDEP Western Regional Office (Title 5 Wastewater Representative) | Paul Nietupski

APPENDIX | INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

110

Public Meeting Village Center Intersection Redesign | Weston & Sampson Engineers Date: August 13, 2015 Time: 6:30 p.m. Place: Colrain Elementary School, Colrain, MA Others Present: Approximately Thirty Town Residents Purpose | To meet town residents, observe a public town meeting and gain information about the Complete Streets Projects which will impact land-use in the town center. Public Presentation |The Weston & Sampson Engineer presented four different schemes for the redesign of the main intersection in the Colrain Village Center. The four designs were labeled incorrectly in the presentation which led to a great deal of confusion amongst those present. Designs must include a five foot shoulder for bicyclists on each side of the two lane road in order to comply with state guidelines and allow enough space for sidewalks and main intersection redesign. Public Comment | The main concern that was raised regarded the perceived loss of the town common and green space. However, this perception is believed to have been caused by a presentation and visualization error. In fact, all plans would add to the existing amount of green

Image 27 |Example Of Public Participation In The Planning Process Photo: Author (2015)

111

space at the town intersection, not detract from it. There was no consensus as to how to move forward and as to which of the proposals would be most suitable for the town. Three main desires from the community were noted as follows: 1 preservation of the town common, 2 sidewalks/crosswalks to improve pedestrian access, and 3 a reduction of traffic speeds through the village center. Public Parking | A lack of public parking in the town center to support future business development has been identified. Currently, plans do not address this issue. The engineer present was consulted as to whether there would not be enough space to have on-street parallel parking on one side of the main street and he said there would not be enough space.

Woodslawn Dairy Farm Owner |

Robert Purington

labor. The majority of the hay fields are fertilized with commercial pellet fertilizer.

Date: August 21, 2015 Time: 5:00 p.m. Place: Woodslawn Dairy Farm, Colrain, MA.

Difficulties of Dairy Farming | Dairy farming is hard on the body and on the mind, but it can also be very rewarding. It demands a great deal of physical labor and one has to deal with fluctuating market prices and other uncertainties such as a lack of available farm labor and more.

Purpose | To gain an understanding of dairy farming in Colrain and whether farmers have excess manure for biogas production. Woodslawn Farm Overview | Woodslawn Farm is a seventh generation dairy farm and home to 45 milking cows and 35 heifers. It is one of the few remaining dairy farms in Colrain. At one time it was also an apple farm, but the apple harvest only occurs once a year, whereas milk can be harvested everyday, so in a way, dairy farming provides a more stable source of income throughout any given year. On average a cow produces around 70 lbs of milk a day. But the amount of milk varies between 40-130 lbs/day and typically peaks at 7-8 weeks after the mother cow gives birth.

Market | The milk is sold wholesale to the Agrimart co-op where it is made into Cabot butter and cheese and to Friendyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and Hood where it is made into Ice Cream. The milk mainly stays in the local area. Last year the farm received $27 for 100 lbs of milk and this year the farm only receives $17.5 for the same amount. The farm must be able to absorb these fluctuations. Biogas Potential | To produce biogas upwards of 200 cows and their manure is needed. Manure is complemented by food waste as it increases the amount of biogas which can be generated. Therefore food waste - typically transported in large trucks - must be able to reach the facility and it is possible that town roads/bridges may not be able to support the heavy loads. Another consideration is that the facility must have access to three phase power lines where power produced can be received and distributed.

Manure/Fertilizer | Today the farm uses all the manure that is produced on the farm, and a few loads are sold to other small farmers. It is used to fertilize one of the lower hay fields where the manure can be carried down hill, with gravity. For a hay field, 1,000-1,200 lbs of manure is needed compared to only 100/200 lbs of pellet fertilizer. This difference in weight is substantial and of course the lighter fertilizer can be applied with greater ease on machinery and physical

Suggested Contacts: Local Dairy Farmer | Dean Roberts

Image 28 |View Of One Of The Few Dairy Farms That Is Still In Operation Photo: Author (2015)

APPENDIX | INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

112

Colrain Town Selectman |

Jack Cavolick

Date: August 23, 2015 Time: 2:30 p.m. Place: Jack Cavolick’s Home, Colrain, MA

Image 29 |View From Within The Chicken Coup Photo: Author (2015)

Purpose | To gain an understanding of a town Selectman’s perspective of the current and future state of the Colrain Village Center and to see a successful example of rural urban agriculture on a small lot at one of the residences in the Village Center. Wastewater | Some town residents are opposed to a connection with Barnhardt because they have a working septic system and do not want to pay for a new system. Others, on the lower side of the road, where Jack’s house is located, will also have to install and maintain a pump to connect to the main line. This is an expensive connection and for those who have a functioning system, it is not worth the cost. Also, it is likely that there will be problems entering into an agreement with Barnhardt Manufacturing. Rural Urban Agriculture | On the property, Jack has a variety of garden beds where he grows his own produce for him and his wife. He has left his septic leach field clear of planters and raised the others. He has also converted a part of the neighbors shed to house chickens and has built an outdoor pen. Additionally, one of his neighbors Jim Slowinsky has allowed him to use a part of his land to grow additional fruits and vegetables.

Image 30 |White Raspberries Grown On The Property Photo: Author (2015)

113

Image 31 |Raised Backyard Vegetable & Fruit Beds Photo: Author (2015)

Director of the Institute of Wastewater Management and Water Protection at TUHH | Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ralf Otterpohl Date: September 7, 2015 Time: 11:00 a.m. Place: TUHH, Hamburg, Germany Purpose | To get feedback on the thesis proposal and thesis direction. Wastewater | Prof. Otterpohl believes that the proposal for the village center sewer connection to Barnhardt is outrageous for such a small community. He believes that on-site systems could be designed for $5-10,000 / unit which would drastically reduce the cost of wastewater infrastructure. A simple cost benefit analysis should be completed. He suggested having a look at Orenco Systems and trickling filter systems as a means to meet the communities needs. He would recommend focusing on installing flexible systems. For example, he would suggest property owners install two pipes, one for greywater and one for blackwater to prepare for future system renovations which take new water saving concepts into consideration. He also recommended the installation of low-flush 3.5 liter toilets, water efficient shower heads, for example bubble rain shower heads which use 6 liters/ minute, and save energy because you are heating less water. Energy recovery from greywater could also be incorporated. Water should also be heated by installing solar thermal collectors. Potentially, the money saved by installing on-site systems could be used to support other needed infrastructure and initiatives in the town village center. Biogas Production from Wastewater | Biogas production from wastewater is not recommended. Currently, Prof. Otterpohl has moved away from the concept of producing biogas from wastewater. He states, “the mass balances are clear, we should be feeding the soil, not depleting humus”. The amount of biogas that is produced is not that really that much and its production requires a lot of infrastructure and on-going and complicated maintenance. Added-Value Suggestions | Set up local production possibilities. For example, the production of locally available agro-based insulation materials for energy efficient households, perhaps Hemp insulation should be given consideration and the production of solar panels. Trees + Produce = Food and Fodder. Market gardening should also be encouraged as a source of local income and sustainable food sheds. Suggested Contacts: Building construction, materials and local production | Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Willkomm Further Reading: The Market Gardener: A Successful Grower’s Handbook for Small-Scale Organic Farming | Jean-Martin Fortier Rebuilding the Foodshed : How to Create Local, Sustainable, and Secure Food Systems | Philip Ackerman-Leist Tree Crops: A permanent agriculture | J. Russell Smith

APPENDIX | INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

114

Operation and Maintenance Administrator at Flintenbreite, Lübeck | Dipl. Ing Torsten Bettendorf Date: September 10, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Flintenbreite, Lübeck, Germany Purpose | To obtain current information about the Flintenbreite development project which was designed with integrated energy and wastewater concepts. Biogas Production at Flintenbreite | The development was designed to produce biogas from the wastewater collected from vacuum toilets installed throughout the development. Construction of the development began in 1999, however in 2001 the developer went bankrupt and the settlement never reached its full settlement size. Because of this, the biogas production system was never put into operation because there was never enough blackwater flow. Since then, a new developer has taken over and the development is close to being finished. However the biogas technology is currently outdated, does not meet today’s safety standards, and the mechanical infrastructure has suffered from not being used. Furthermore, because Germany has numerous manure and livestock based biogas facilities, mainly due to the Energiewendi, there is a surplus of digestate that is already being applied to fields. Furthermore, the water content of the digestate from wastewater biogas production is high and because of concerns over the existence of micropollutants from pharmaceuticals in the digestate, there is no demand for it. It is also difficult to adapt the existing technology to new techniques. Currently, the blackwater is collected and then pumped out every week, which can be expensive. A research project will begin which will investigate what to do with the blackwater in the future. Biogas Production from Wastewater | The conversion rate of blackwater to biogas is not that high. Only 1-2% of household electrical energy needs can be met with the biogas produced (approx. 1 hour/week). However, there are other savings which must also be taken into consideration and biogas should also be compared with the energy needs of typical aerobic treatment which uses a lot of energy. 115

Vacuum Toilets| Vacuum toilet systems can be difficult to operate. When air gets in through the pipes, this can cause severe clogging. Therefore, securing airtight operation is critical. Also, vertical pipes should be avoided as they cause problems as some of the solids remain in the pipes. Biogas Production in China | Simple biogas domes that are common in China, are a low tech means of producing biogas for cooking. However, this system is not controlled enough for the European context and would not be accepted as an acceptable solution. It does not meet current regulations, for example cooking with an open flame is not allowed. Trickling Filter | A trickling filter was recommended for application in Colrain. The functioning of such a system was detailed and compared to a traditional wastewater treatment system. It was stated that around 1-2m2 of space is required to treat the wastewater of one person using a trickling filter. The space requirement for a trickling filter is less than it is for a constructed wetland. Quotes| “Wastewater is a mirror of society.” - Prof. Dr. Willi Gujer Further Reading: Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse | Metcalf and Eddy

APPENDIX

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SOIL TYPE Parcel | Road | River Outlines Village Center Boundary Pootatuck very fine sandy loam Ridgebury gravelly fine sandy loam Suncook loamy sand Occum fine sandy loam Chatfield-Hollis complex Millsite-Westmister complex Charlton-Chatfield-Hollis Complex Scio silt loam Merrimac fine sandy loam Sudbury Sandy Loam Agawam fine sandy loam Ninigret very fine sandy loam Paxton fine sandy loam Woodbridge loam Carlton fine sandy loam Canton fine sandy loam Udorthents

EXTREMELY LOW FILTRATION RATES

clay

sandy clay

silty clay clay loam

sandy clay loam sandy loam

loam

silty clay loam silt loam silt

HIGH INFILTRATION RATES

LOW INFILTRATION RATES 0

250

500M

250 500FT

Figure 80 | Soil Type & Texture Sources: MASS GIS (2015), USDA NRCS (2015) and MASS DEP (2014a). Graphic: Author.

APPENDIX | SUPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

116

COLRAIN INHABITANT ESTIMATE FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND WITH PUBLIC WATER Street Name and Number

Colrain Project Area Household Occupancy

Public Water Supply Household Occupancy

2 Main St.

No PWS

3 Main St.

4 Main St.

No PWS

5 Main St.

6 Main St.

7 Main St.

8 Main St.

public

No PWS

9 Main St.

10 Main St.

11 Main St.

12 Main St.

public

No PWS

13 Main St.

14 Main St.

15 Main St.

16 Main St.

2.45*

No PWS

19 Main St.

No PWS

21 Main St.

26 Main St.

commercial

No PWS

51 Main St.

public

No PWS

55 Main St.

public

No PWS

61 Main St.

n/a

2 Coburn St.

7 Coburn St.

14 Coburn St.

2.45*

No Public Water

25 Coburn St.

No Public Water

46 Coburn St.

2.45*

No Public Water

48 Coburn St.

2.45*

No Public Water

2 Herzog Ln.

2.45*

No Public Water

12 Herzog Ln.

2.45*

No PWS

1 Greenfield Rd.

No PWS

Street Name and Number

Colrain Project Area Household Occupancy

Public Water Supply Household Occupancy

3 Greenfield Rd.

5 Greenfield Rd.

6 Greenfield Rd.

No PWS

7 Greenfield Rd.

9 Greenfield Rd.

11 Greenfield Rd.

No PWS

13 Greenfield Rd.

16 Greenfield Rd.

22 Greenfield Rd.

No PWS

1 Jacksonville Rd.

public

3 Jacksonville Rd.

6 Jacksonville Rd.

7 Jacksonville Rd.

commercial

No PWS

9 Jacksonville Rd.

public

No PWS

10 Jacksonville Rd.

22 Jacksonville Rd.

public

No PWS

30 Jacksonville Rd.

No PWS

31 Jacksonville Rd.

No PWS

1 River Str.

3 River Str.

5 River Str.

9 River Str.

11 River Str.

13 River Str.

15 River Str.

21 River Str.

25 River Str.

No PWS

1 Streeter Ln.

2 Streeter Ln.

108

Total Estimated Occupancy

Table 6 | Colrain Inhabitant Estimate & Properties With Public Water Source: Based on Conversations with Dorothy Conway, the Colrain Village Center PWS clerk. *When household occupancy is unknown, the average Colrain household size of 2.45 is used as per US Census Bureau (2010b).

117

PUBLIC/COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOW (TITLE V) Type of Establishment

Building Type of Building Unit Size (Title V) Measurement (Title V)

Unit Estimate (Colrain)

Town Office Fire Station Post Office Library Historical Society Colrain Center Elementary School

4480 6864 1225 1228 2085 n/a

per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. per seat per person

Verizon Restaurant Meeting House

741 2128 4640

Chandlerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Store Government Building

1600 1254

Office Office Office Office Function Hall Elementary School with Kitchen & Gymnasium but without Showers Warehouse Restaurant Place of Worship with Kitchen Retail Store Office

Design Flow (GPD)

4.48 6.864 1.225 1.228 25 127

GPD Min. Pre. (Title V) GPD Design (Title V) Flow (GPD) 75 200 336 75 200 514.8 75 200 91.875 75 200 92.1 15 n/a 375 8 n/a 1016

per person per seat per seat

2 35 160

15 25 6

n/a 1000 n/a

30 875 960

200 1000 960

per 1,000 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft.

1.6 1.254

50 75

200 200

80 94.05

200 200

336 514.8 200 200 375 1016

Total Public |Institutional 5,202 Table 7 | Public/Commercial Wastewater Design Flow Calculations Source: Calculated by Author, based on MASS DEP (2014a)

RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOW (TITLE V) Type of Residence

Number of Residences Single Family Residences with less 39 than 8 rooms Single Family Residences with 3 more than 8 rooms

Multi-Family Residences

Title V Estimated Number of Bedrooms 117

Title V Design Flow per Bedroom (GPD) 110

Estimated Design Flow (GPD) 12,870

110

1,540

Total 14,410 110 5,390 Total 5,390 Total Residential 19,800

Table 8 | Residential Wastewater Design Flow Calculations Source: Calculated by Author, based on MASS DEP (2014a)

APPENDIX | SUPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

118

COLRAIN VILLAGE CENTER SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATION CAPACITY Street Name and Number

System Output KWh per year

Energy Value ($)

Array Azimuth

DC System Size

Estimated Cost of Installation ($)

4227 15605 9026 2961 4325 2961 4443 9227 5240 12074 3,771 8060 11773 7746 6966 6500 9693 5131 23536 11009 1939

594 2195 1270 417 609 417 625 1299 735 1698 531 1134 1658 705 979 914 1364 721 3313 1550 273

90 180 270 180 90 180 180 180 180 180 180 90 270 180 270 180 180 180 225 90 180

4 14 9 3 4 3 4 8 5 11 3 8 12 4 7 6 9 5 22 11 2

12728 40552 27232 7696 13024 7696 11544 23976 13616 31376 8584 24272 35520 13024 21016 16872 25160 13320 63640 33152 5032

21 18 21 18 21 18 18 18 19 18 16 21 21 18 21 18 18 18 19 21 18

3505 3877 3421 6186 6459 9236

492 548 482 869 911 1300

135 180 180 90 225 180

3 3 3 6 6 8

9472 10064 8880 18648 17464 23976

19 18 18 21 19 18

4219 7298

593 1027

180 180

4 6

10952 18944

18 18

16096 11609 6571 0 7225 0 1643 0

2264 1632 928 0 1016 0 232 0

225 225 135 n/a 225 n/a 135 n/a

15 11 6

43512 31376 17760 0 19536 0 4440 0

19 19 19

(with estimated 20% cost reduction due to Solarize MA participation)

Simple Payback (years)

Main St. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 21 26 51 55 61 Coburn St. 2 7 14 25 46 48 Herzog Ln. 2 12 Greenfield Rd. 1 3 5 6 7 9 11 13 119

7 0 2 0

19 19

16 22 Jacksonville Rd. 1 3 6 7 9 10 22 30 31 River Str. 1 3 5 9 11 13 15 21 25 Streeter Ln. 1 2 Totals

1862 3943

264 556

135 135

2 4

5032 10656

19 19

12,578 8,413 8429 14221 5579 14874 58308 2188 3501

1771 1184 1186 2002 785 2092 8205 308 493

135 180 180 225 225 135 225 225 225

12 7 7 13 5 14 53 2 3

34040 19240 21904 38480 15096 40256 157768 5920 9472

19 16 18 19 19 19 19 19 19

13136 4160 3503 9633 8101 7553 3941 5366 5585

1849 586 494 1354 1139 1062 555 755 787

225 225 225 225 225 225 225 135 135

12 4 3 9 7 7 4 5 5

35520 11248 9472 26048 21904 20424 10656 14504 15096

19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

7070 7260 462,762

995 1022 64,739

180 270

6 7

18352 21904

18 21

Table 9 | Colrain Village Center Solar Electric Generation Capacity Calculations Source: Calculated by Author, based on results for each property by using the PVWatts® calculator.

Calculation Details | Panels were cited on all south facing rooftops and if southern exposure was not possible, panels were placed on either the east or west facing rooftops. Results show that east and west facing solar panels produce slightly less electricity than their southern facing counterparts and the simple payback period for these panels increases by about two years. The following system specifications were used for all systems: Module Type Premium, Array Type Fixed (roof mount), Array Tilt 20°, System Losses 14%, Inverter Efficiency 96%, DC to AC Size Ratio 1.1. The Array Azimuth was changed depending on rooftop orientation. The average cost of electricity purchased from the Utility was assumed to be 0.14$/KWh (0.12€/kWh) and the initial cost was assumed to be 3.30 $/Wdc. The cost of the electricity generated by the system is 0.25$/kWh. Notes | One of the drawbacks to PVWatts® Calculator is that shading by other buildings, trees, or mountains is not taken into consideration. Therefore, it is possible that the actual generation capacity would be lower than this theoretical calculation. Furthermore, These cost estimates are conservative values because the average cost of electricity purchased from the utility would likely be more than 0.14$/KWh since as of October 2015, the price of electricity had risen to 0.18$/kWh or 0.16€/kWh (EIA, 2015). The payback period can also be reduced because a Federal tax credit return of 30% of what you spend on the system is available, in addition to a $1,000 MA state tax credit and State solar credits (SREC’s) which can be sold based on how much energy is produced each year and of course energy savings on the electric bill if energy efficiency and conservation efforts are made (Solarize Mass Shelburne-Colrain-Conway, 2016). Taking advantage of these financing opportunities could greatly reduce the payback period.

APPENDIX | SUPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

120

COLRAIN WIND GENERATION POTENTIALS AT DIFFERENT HEIGHTS Wind Speeds at 98 FT | 30 M

Wind Speeds at 164 FT |50 M

Wind Speeds at 230 FT |70 M

Wind Speeds at 328 FT |100 M

0-13 FT | 0-4 M Per Sec. 13-16 FT | 4-5 M Per Sec.

16-20 FT | 5-6 M Per Sec. 20-23 FT | 6-7 M Per Sec.

23-26 FT | 7-8 M Per Sec.

1 2KM

Figure 81 | Wind Speed Analysis The potential for installing wind turbines is located outside the Colrain Village Center. The strongest winds are located at Christian, Wilson and Catamount Hills. The town of Colrain should look into this potential further. Source: Based on Modeled Wind Speed Grids from MassGIS (2015).

121

COLRAIN FOOD SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND SELF-RELIANCE CALCULATIONS New England

Franklin County

Colrain

Population 17,000,000 (2035*)

Population 77,000 (2035*)

Population 1,277 (2035*)

Acres Needed for SelfSufficiency

Acres Needed for Self Reliance

Existing Acreage

Acres Needed for SelfSufficiency

Acres Needed for Self Reliance

Existing Acreage

Acres Needed for SelfSufficiency

Acres Needed for Self Reliance

Cropland

5,887,124

3,677,200

23,750

26,492

16,547

1,591

442

276

Pasture

3,600,000

12,320

16,200

1,178

270

Orchard

530,000

265,000

1,180

2,385

1,193

135

TOTAL

100,17,124

7,542,200

37,250

45,077

33,940

2,905

751

566

* The acreage amount for New England must multiplied by 0.0045 (i.e. 77,000/17,000,000)

* The acreage amount for New England must multiplied by 0.000075 (i.e. 1277/17,000,000)

Table 10 | Food Self-Sufficiency and Self-Reliance for New England, Franklin County & Colrain Source: Based on Elizares & Lane, 2012. Existing acreage calculated from MassGIS (2015) data.

COLRAIN VILLAGE CENTER PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY USAGE PER MONTH 2015 Month

Gallons | Liters (G|L)

January

139 | 526

February

101 | 382

1,000s

March

109 | 413

April

98 | 371

May

113 | 428

June

118 | 447

July

160 | 606

August

119 | 451

September

107 | 405

October

103 | 390

November

92 | 348

December

102 | 386

Total Water Use

1,361 | 5,152

COLRAIN VILLAGE CENTER INDOOR AND OUTDOOR WATER USE 2015 Gallons | Liters (G|L) Indoor Annual Water Use1

1,104 | 4,179

Indoor Water Use2

38 | 144

Outdoor Annual Water Use3

257 | 973

Outdoor Water Use2 Person/Day

9 | 34

Person/Day

Table 12 | Indoor & Outdoor Water Use Calculations 1 Indoor water usage is based on the assumption that the monthly water usage data for November 2015 (92,000 gallons) is indicative of monthly indoor household water use because no water is needed for irrigation is needed at this time of the year. 2Occupancy of the households which use the PWS has been estimated at 79 people based on conversations with Dorothy Conway, February 26, 2016. 3The remaining water which is not calculated at indoor, is considered to be outdoor irrigation water.

Table 11 | Monthly Water Use Data Source; Provided By Dorothy Conway, February 26, 2016

APPENDIX | SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

122

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA & RATING SYSTEM Weston & Sampson Alternative 2b

Flexible

Primary Indicator

Secondary/Explicatory Indicator

Units / Score

Acceptable

by Householder

H (5)-Status Quo (3) - L (1)

Change in Behavior

Yes (2)/N (4)

Total Average Simple

Yes (5)/Partially (3)/ No (1)

Managed By Local Personal

Yes (4)/No (2)

H-M-L (1-5)

O&M

H-M-L (1-5)

Total Average Energy Efficient

H-M-L (1-5)

Collection Energy Needs

H-M-L (1-5)

Total Average Flexible

System Scalability Potential

No to Yes (1-5)

By Householder

H-Status Quo (SQ) - L (5-1)

Change in Behavior

Yes (2)/N (4)

Add Value

Yes (4)/N (2)

Total Average Cost-Effective

H-M-L (1-5)

O&M

H-M-L (1-5)

Total Average Energy Efficient

System Energy Needs

H-M-L (1-5)

Collection Energy Needs

H-M-L (1-5)

Total Average Flexible

System Scalability Potential

Add Value Acceptable

4 Yes (5)/Partially (3)/N (1)

Managed By Local Personal

Yes (4)/N (2)

1.5

Total Average

Simple

Cost-Effective

1.5

System Energy Needs

H-M-L (1-5)

Collection Energy Needs

H-M-L (1-5)

Capital Cost

H-M-L (1-5)

O&M

H-M-L (1-5)

Total Average Energy Efficient

System Pumping

H-M-L (5-1)

Collection Pumping

H-M-L (1-5)

4.5

Total Average

L-M-H (1-5)

Flexible

No to Yes (1-5)

Add Value

System Scalability Potential

3 L-M-H (1-5)

4 2

On-Site & Cluster System | BioFilter/Constructed Wetland

by Householder

H-Status Quo (SQ) - L (5-1)

Change in Behavior

Yes (2)/No (4)

Acceptable

1.5

Built By Local Contractors

Yes (5)/Partially (3)/ No (1)

Managed By Local Personal

Yes (4)/No (2)

H-M-L (1-5)

O&M

H-M-L (1-5)

Change in Behavior

Yes (2)/N (4)

4 4

Built By Local Contractors

Yes (5)/Partially (3)/N (1)

Managed By Local Personal

Yes (4)/N (2)

Total Average H-M-L (1-5)

O&M

H-M-L (1-5)

3.5

Total Average

H-M-L (1-5)

Collection Energy Needs

H-M-L (1-5)

Cost-Effective

Capital Cost

System Energy Needs

Energy Efficient

5 L-M-H (1-5)

H-Status Quo (SQ) - L (5-1)

Total Average Simple

3.5

Capital Cost

by Householder

3.5

System Energy Needs

H-M-L (1-5)

Collection Energy Needs

H-M-L (1-5)

Total Average

Flexible

Add Value

System Scalability Potential

Table 13 | Alternative Assessment Criteria and Rating System H=High, SQ=Status Quo, L=Low. Source: Developed using Tjandraatmadja, Sharma, Grant, & Pamminger (2013)

123

Capital Cost

Built By Local Contractors

H-M-L (1-5)

System Scalability Potential

Managed By Local Personal

O&M

Total Average Flexible

Yes (2)/N (4)

Total Average Energy Efficient

Yes (5)/Partially (3)/N (1)

Total Average

H-M-L (1-5)

Total Average Cost-Effective

Built By Local Contractors

Change in Behavior

Capital Cost

Total Average Simple

Simple

3.5

Dual System | Blackwater to Compost Acceptable

Yes (4)/No (2)

Add Value

Yes (2)/N (4)

Managed By Local Personal

System Scalability Potential

Change in Behavior

H-Status Quo (SQ) - L (5-1)

Total Average Flexible

by Householder

Yes (5)/Partially (3)/N (1)

Total Average Energy Efficient

H-Status Quo (SQ) - L (5-1)

Built By Local Contractors

Total Average Cost-Effective

by Householder

On-Site & Cluster System | Media Filters

Total Average Simple

L-M-H (1-5)

Dual System | Blackwater to Energy Acceptable

Total Average

1.5

L-M-H (1-5)

Add Value

Acceptable

1.5

System Energy Needs

L-M-H (1-5)

Triple System | Urine to Fertilizer

1.5

Capital Cost

System Scalability Potential

Add Value

2.5

Built By Local Contractors

Total Average Cost-Effective

Rating (1-5)

4 L-M-H (1-5)

4 4

Worst

5 Best

124

Brushland | Successional Pasture Cropland Open Land Cemetery Forest

Orchard Water Non-Forested Wetland Forested Wetland High Density Residential Medium Density Residential

COLRAIN LAND USE ANALYSIS

Multi-Family Residential Low Density Residential Very Low Density Residential Urban Public | Institutional Commercial Participation Recreation

Industrial Powerline | Utility Mining Transitional Waste Disposal Junkyard

1 1

2 KM

FOREST

90%

10%

2 MI

OTHER

WATER | 5.21%

CROP LAND | 1.67%

PASTURE | 1.23%

POWERLINE/UTILITY | 0.43%

VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL | 0.35%

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL | 0.30%

APPENDIX | SUPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

FOREST | 90%

OTHER | 10%

125