Easthampton IWRMP Report - Final

INTEGRATED
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

REPORT
EASTHAMPTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Easthampton, Massachusetts
December 2018
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
A Report Prepared for:
CITY OF EASTHAMPTON
Municipal Building
50 Payson Avenue
Easthampton, MA 01027
INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORT
Prepared Under the Supervision of:
Neil Kulikauskas, P.E. Pam Westgate, P.E.

Senior Project Manager Senior Project Engineer
KLEINFELDER KLEINFELDER
200 Corporate Place, Suite 310 1500 Main Street, Suite 1506
Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Springfield, MA 01115
Elizabeth G. Baldwin, P.E. David J. Popielarczyk, P.E.

Vice President Senior Engineer/Associate
TIGHE & BOND, INC. TIGHE & BOND, INC.

53 Southampton Road 53 Southampton Road
Westfield, MA 01085 Westfield, MA 01085
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ES-1
1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Overall Project Drivers ......................................................................................1-1

1.2 Water Resource Infrastructure ..........................................................................1-2
1.3 Objectives .........................................................................................................1-3
1.4 Report Contents ................................................................................................1-3
2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...........................................................................................2-1
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................3-1
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Existing Reports ................................................................................................3-1
3.2.1 Master Plan, 2008 .................................................................................3-1
3.2.2 Open Space and Recreation Plan, 2013 ...............................................3-2
3.2.3 CPA Preservation Plan (2014)...............................................................3-3
3.3 Natural Environment .........................................................................................3-3
3.3.1 Geology .................................................................................................3-3
3.3.2 Water Resources...................................................................................3-4
3.3.3 Water Quality ........................................................................................3-6
3.3.4 Climate ................................................................................................3-14
3.4 Built Environment and Wastewater needs analysis .........................................3-16
3.4.1 Hazardous Waste Sites .......................................................................3-17
3.4.2 Population and Anticipated Growth......................................................3-18
3.4.3 Open Land ..........................................................................................3-20
3.4.4 Zoning and Redevelopment.................................................................3-20
Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

City of Easthampton i December 2018
4 WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ..........................................................................4-1
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Wastewater Treatment Facility ..........................................................................4-1
4.2.1 Project Drivers .......................................................................................4-1
4.2.2 WWTF Overview ...................................................................................4-3
4.2.3 Staffing Analysis ..................................................................................4-15
4.2.4 Existing and Future Planning conditions ..............................................4-16
4.2.5 Current and Projected Future Permit Limits .........................................4-23
4.2.6 Condition Assessment .........................................................................4-23
4.2.7 Energy Audit Summary........................................................................4-26
4.2.8 Secondary Treatment System Improvements ......................................4-27
4.2.9 Solids Handling Improvements ............................................................4-31
4.2.10 Disinfection System Improvements......................................................4-32
4.2.11 Outfall Evaluation ................................................................................4-34
4.2.12 Recommended WWTF Improvements .................................................4-37
4.3 Pump Stations Evaluation ...............................................................................4-39
4.3.1 Project Drivers .....................................................................................4-39
4.3.2 Background .........................................................................................4-40
4.3.3 Staffing ................................................................................................4-42
4.3.4 Condition Assessment .........................................................................4-43
4.3.5 Energy Evaluation ...............................................................................4-44
4.3.6 Pump Station Elimination ....................................................................4-45
4.3.7 Recommended Pump Station Improvements ......................................4-50
4.4 Collection System Evaluation ..........................................................................4-51
4.4.1 Background .........................................................................................4-51
4.4.2 Staffing Analysis ..................................................................................4-54
4.4.3 Field Investigations..............................................................................4-55
4.4.4 Improvements Assessment .................................................................4-60
4.4.5 Recommended Wastewater Collection System Improvements ............4-67
5 DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................5-1
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Project Drivers ..................................................................................................5-1
5.2.1 Aging Equipment/Facilities ....................................................................5-2
5.2.2 Energy Efficiency...................................................................................5-2

City of Easthampton ii December 2018
5.2.3 Water Production Capability ..................................................................5-2
5.2.4 Treatment Capacity ...............................................................................5-2
5.2.5 Fire Flow Capacity .................................................................................5-3
5.2.6 Water Age .............................................................................................5-3
5.3 Water Supply Facilities......................................................................................5-3
5.3.1 Hendrick Street Facilities .......................................................................5-3
5.3.2 Well Facilities ........................................................................................5-8
5.3.3 Water Storage Tanks...........................................................................5-11
5.3.4 Facilities Condition Assessment ..........................................................5-14
5.3.5 Energy Audit Summary........................................................................5-15
5.4 Water Demand Analysis..................................................................................5-15
5.4.1 Water Management Act .......................................................................5-16
5.4.2 Sustainable Water Management Initiative (SWMI) Program ................5-19
5.4.3 Water Demand Classification ..............................................................5-21
5.4.4 Conservation and Demand Management ............................................5-26
5.5 Water Supply Analysis ....................................................................................5-31
5.5.1 Adequacy of Existing Supply ...............................................................5-31
5.5.2 Water Treatment Capacity ...................................................................5-34
5.5.3 Surplus Supply ....................................................................................5-35
5.6 Water Treatment Analysis ...............................................................................5-36
5.6.1 Overview .............................................................................................5-36
5.6.2 Operational Assessment .....................................................................5-36
5.6.3 Treatment Performance.......................................................................5-37
5.6.4 Summary of Treatment Recommendations .........................................5-41
5.7 Water System Distribution Analysis ................................................................5-42
5.7.1 Hydraulic Model...................................................................................5-42
5.7.2 Fire Flow Availability ............................................................................5-42
5.7.3 System Pressures ...............................................................................5-43
5.7.4 Water Age ...........................................................................................5-45
5.7.5 Storage ...............................................................................................5-46
5.7.6 Mt. Tom Tank ......................................................................................5-48
5.7.7 Pipe Replacement Recommendations.................................................5-49
5.7.8 Other water Distribution System Recommendations ............................5-50
5.8 Summary of High Priority Water Supply Recommendations ............................5-51

City of Easthampton iii December 2018
6 STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ..........................................................................6-1
6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Stormwater Inventory and Existing Conditions ..................................................6-1
6.3 Future Stormwater Planning Conditions and Needs ..........................................6-6
6.3.1 Future Development ..............................................................................6-6
6.3.2 Regulatory Requirements ......................................................................6-7
6.3.3 2003 MS4 Permit...................................................................................6-9
6.3.4 2016 MS4 Permit.................................................................................6-13
6.3.5 2016 MS4 Permit NOI .........................................................................6-14
6.3.6 2016 MS4 Permit SWMP.....................................................................6-16
6.4 Estimated Stormwater Costs ...........................................................................6-25
6.4.1 Existing Stormwater Expenditures .......................................................6-26
6.4.2 2016 MS4 General Permit Compliance Costs .....................................6-28
6.4.3 Five-Year Capital Costs.......................................................................6-30
6.4.4 Total Estimated Stormwater Costs ......................................................6-31
6.5 Preliminary Stormwater Funding Evaluation ..............................................6-31
6.6 Stormwater Recommendations .......................................................................6-32
7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................................................................7-1
7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Project Scoring Methodology ............................................................................7-1
7.2.1 Likelihood of Failure ..............................................................................7-2
7.2.2 Consequence Factors ...........................................................................7-3
7.2.3 Risk/ Opportunity Score.........................................................................7-4
7.3 Opinion of Probable Cost ..................................................................................7-4
7.4 CIP Tables ........................................................................................................7-5
8 PRELIMINARY RATE ANALYSIS ...............................................................................8-1
8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................8-1

8.1.1 Sources of Information ..........................................................................8-1
8.2 Existing Rates and Rate History........................................................................8-1
8.3 Community Comparison....................................................................................8-3
8.4 Preliminary Rate Impacts ..................................................................................8-3
8.4.1 Drinking Water Service ..........................................................................8-4

City of Easthampton iv December 2018
8.4.2 Wastewater / Sewer ..............................................................................8-5
8.4.3 Stormwater ............................................................................................8-5
8.4.4 Summary ...............................................................................................8-6
8.5 Alternative Methods of Cost Recovery for Water and Sewer .............................8-7
8.5.1 Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) .............................................................8-7
8.5.2 Actual Volume .......................................................................................8-8
8.5.3 Type and Size .......................................................................................8-8
8.5.4 Other Rate Setting Methods ..................................................................8-9
8.6 Recommendations and Next Steps ...................................................................8-9

City of Easthampton v December 2018
APPENDICES
Appendix A Public Participation

Appendix B Environmental Features
Appendix C Surficial Geology
Appendix D Barnes Aquifer
Appendix E Great American Water Taste Test Results
Appendix F MassDEP Water Quality Results for the CT and Manhan Rivers
Appendix G Manhan River Testing Protocol and Results
Appendix H Unsewered Properties
Appendix I Parcels Available for Development
Appendix J Open Land Map
Appendix K 2015 Zoning Map
Appendix L Wastewater Treatment Facility Evaluation Technical Memorandum
Appendix M Wastewater Pump Stations Evaluation Technical Memorandum
Appendix N Wastewater Collection System Evaluation Technical Memorandum
Appendix O Drinking Water Evaluation Report
Appendix P Drinking Water System Map
Appendix Q Prioritized List of Water Mains
Appendix R Stormwater System Map
Appendix S Stormwater Management Plan
Appendix T IDDE Plan
Appendix U Stormwater Management Ordinance
Appendix V Preliminary Stormwater Funding Evaluation Report

City of Easthampton vi December 2018
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1 Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................ ES-17

Table 2-1 Public Participation..................................................................................................2-1
Table 3-1 Strategies Related to Water Infrastructure Planning ................................................3-2
Table 3-2 Designated Use Categories Assigned for Easthampton Water Bodies .....................3-8
Table 3-3 2014 Integrated Waters List for Easthampton ..........................................................3-8
Table 3-4 24-hour Rainfall Accumulation (NRCS) .................................................................3-15
Table 3-5 Sites Listed on MassDEP Waste Cleanup Program ...............................................3-17
Table 4-1 Comparison of Existing WWTF Influent Flows to Design Flows ..............................4-17
Table 4-2 Wastewater Flow By Customer Type .....................................................................4-18
Table 4-3 Projected Future Average Daily Wastewater Flow..................................................4-19
Table 4-4 Summary of Existing and Projected Future Flows ..................................................4-19
Table 4-5 Existing WWTF Influent Loads ...............................................................................4-20
Table 4-6 Existing and Projected Future Wastewater Flows and Loads .................................4-22
Table 4-7 Wastewater Condition Assessment Costs ..............................................................4-25
Table 4-8 Summary of Recommended Energy Improvements ...............................................4-26
Table 4-9 Pump Station Summary .........................................................................................4-41
Table 4-10 Pump Station Elimination Capital Costs ...............................................................4-49
Table 4-11 Summary of Major Interceptors ............................................................................4-52
Table 4-12 Collection System Age .........................................................................................4-53
Table 4-13 Estimated Inflow From Sources Identified – Dyed Water Testing .........................4-57
Table 4-14 Cross Connection/Dyed Water Flooding Investigations ........................................4-58
Table 4-15 Manholes With Items of Special Concern .............................................................4-60
Table 4-16 Sewer System Rehabilitation Methods .................................................................4-63
Table 4-17 Sewer System Improvements Based on Field Investigations................................4-64
Table 4-18 Estimated Cost of Annual Sewer and Manhole Inspections ..................................4-65
Table 5-1 Summary of Recommended Energy Improvements ...............................................5-15
Table 5-2 Residential Gallons Per Capita per Day .................................................................5-17
Table 5-3 Unaccounted for Water (UAW) ...............................................................................5-19
Table 5-4 Water Management Act Permit Tiers......................................................................5-20
Table 5-5 Summary of ADD (2035) under 2009 WRC Scenario 1 through 4 ..........................5-25
Table 5-6 Historic and Projected ADD and MDD ....................................................................5-26
Table 5-7 Conservation and/or Demand Management Options ..............................................5-29
Table 5-8 Surplus Water Supply Relative to WMA Registration .............................................5-32
Table 5-9 Water Supply Well Reliable Capacity .....................................................................5-33

City of Easthampton vii December 2018
Table 5-10 Reliable Capacity Considering Treatment ............................................................5-34
Table 5-11 Water Quality Summary – Third Quarter 2015 .....................................................5-38
Table 5-12 Summary of Fire Flows at Key Locations .............................................................5-43
Table 5-13 Average Water Age for Selected Scenarios .........................................................5-46
Table 5-14 Water Distribution Storage ...................................................................................5-47
Table 5-15 Projected Water Storage Requirements ...............................................................5-48
Table 5-16 Priority of Replacement for Distribution Pipes ......................................................5-50
Table 6-1 Outfalls and Receiving Waterbodies.........................................................................6-3
Table 6-2 2004 Outfall Priority..................................................................................................6-4
Table 6-3 2018 Outfall Priority..................................................................................................6-6
Table 6-4 Typical Stormwater Management Expenditures ....................................................6-27
Table 6-5 Estimated Average Annual Sewer Enterprise Fund Stormwater Expenditures 2013-
2017 ...........................................................................................................................6-28
Table 6-6 2016 MS4 Permit Compliance Costs ......................................................................6-29
Table 6-7 Stormwater Infrastructure Capital Needs ................................................................6-30
Table 6-8 Estimated Annual Stormwater Infrastructure Costs ................................................6-31
Table 6-9 GIS Data Gap Assessment ...................................................................................6-33
Table 7-1 Consequence Scores for each Category ..................................................................7-3
Table 8-1 Community Comparison ...........................................................................................8-3
Table 8-2 Preliminary Water Rates ..........................................................................................8-4
Table 8-3 Preliminary Sewer Rates ..........................................................................................8-5
Table 8-4 Preliminary Sewer Rates ..........................................................................................8-6
Table 8-5 Current and Proposed Rates ....................................................................................8-7

City of Easthampton viii December 2018
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Connecticut River Oxbow E. coli Results, May through September 2012-2014 ...3-10
Figure 3-2 Precipitation and E. coli in Oxbow, May through September 2012-2014 ..............3-11
Figure 3-3 Precipitation and E. coli, Manhan River ................................................................3-12
Figure 3-4 White Brook Gabion Weir and Broad Brook Sedimentation Basin ........................3-14
Figure 3-5 Easthampton population from 1930 through 2040 ...............................................3-19
Figure 4-1 WWTF Location ......................................................................................................4-5
Figure 4-2 Easthampton WWTF Site Plan................................................................................4-7
Figure 4-3 WWTF Process Schematic .....................................................................................4-8
Figure 4-4 2014 and 2015 Influent Flow Data – Easthampton WWTF ....................................4-17
Figure 5-1 Hendrick Street Site ................................................................................................5-4
Figure 5-2 2011-2015 Average Water Demand by Classification ..........................................5-22
Figure 5-3 Historic Demands and Withdrawal Volume (MGD) ................................................5-23
Figure 5-4 Distribution of Pressures under Various Demands ................................................5-44
Figure 6-1 Urbanized Area of the City of Easthampton per the 2000 and 2010 Census. ..........6-8
Figure 8-1 Historical Water and Sewer Rates in Easthampton .................................................8-2
Figure 8-2 Combined Water and Sewer Average User Bills .....................................................8-2

City of Easthampton ix December 2018
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering

AC Asbestos Cement
ADD Average Daily Demand
AFF Available Fire Flow
AMR Automatic Meter Reading
APR Agricultural Preservation Restriction
ASR Annual Statistical Reports
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
BAPAC Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee
BFP Belt Filter Press
BMP Best Management Practice
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOH Board of Health
CCC Chlorine Contact Chamber
CEMU Confidently Estimated Municipal Use
CF Cubic Feet
CI Cast Iron
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CMOM Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance
CMU Concrete Masonry Unit
CMR Code of Massachusetts Regulations
CPA Community Preservation Act
CRSWC Connecticut River Stormwater Committee
CWA Clean Water Act
DCR Department of Conservation and Recreation
DI Ductile Iron
DOC Dissolved Organic Solids
DPW Department of Public Works

City of Easthampton x December 2018
E. coli Escherichia coli
EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit
EEA Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
ENR Engineering News Record
EOEA Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERU Equivalent Residential Unit
ESC Erosion and Sediment Control
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
GI Galvanized Iron
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD Gallons Per Capita Daily
GPD Gallons Per Day
GPM Gallons Per Minute
GWC Groundwater Withdrawal Category
HCF Hundred Cubic Feet
HMI Human Machine Interface
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IDDE Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
ISO Insurance Services Office, Inc.
IWRMP Integrated Water Resources Management Plan
MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCM Minimum Control Measure
MDD Maximum Day Demand
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MGY Million Gallons per Year
MH Manhole

City of Easthampton xi December 2018
MLE Modified Ludzack-Ettinger
MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
MRWCS Manpower Requirements for Wastewater Collection Systems
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
ND Non-Detect
NEIWPCC New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
NEWWA New England Water Works Association
NFF Needed Fire Flow
NOI Notice of Intent
NON Notice of Noncompliance
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCC Northeast Regional Climate Center
NRSC Natural Resources Conservation Service
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PFOS Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid
PPB Parts Per Billion
PSA Public Service Announcement
PTA Packed Tower Aeration System
PV Photovoltaic
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
PVPC Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
RAS Return Activated Sludge
RGPCD Residential Gallons Per Capita Day
RR Railroad
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SF Square Foot
SMH Sanitary Manhole
SOP Standard Operating Procedure

City of Easthampton xii December 2018
SRT Solids Retention Time
SSES Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey
SWAP Water Assessment and Protection
SWMI Sustainable Water Management Initiative
SWMP Stormwater Management Program
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TCE Trichloroethylene
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TN Total Nitrogen
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TP Total Phosphorous
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UAW Unaccounted for Water
UMDI University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute
USGS United States Geological Survey
VC Vitrified Clay
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WAS Waste Activated Sludge
WMA Water Management Act
WRC Water Resources Commission
WTF Water Treatment Facility
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
ZBA Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Easthampton xiii December 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (IWRMP) Report for the City of
Easthampton contains a description and presentation of a comprehensive plan to
manage the water resources infrastructure throughout Easthampton that the municipality is
responsible for operating and maintaining. The infrastructure consists of water supply treatment
and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, and stormwater management, facilities,
pipes, and ancillary assets.
The IWRMP includes recommendations for replacement, improvement, and upgrades to the
water, wastewater, and stormwater systems over a 20-year planning horizon. Through the
evaluations of these systems, a 5-year capital improvement plan (CIP) was developed to address
the immediate and short-term needs for maintaining the water resources infrastructure in an
holistic manner. The IWRMP Report and CIP provide recommendations for the City’s water
resources infrastructure to maintain reliable and efficient operations, and to meet the City’s needs
over at least the next twenty years.
The IWRMP is intended to identify and prioritize the City’s operating, maintenance and capital
needs for the City’s water, wastewater and stormwater systems. The IWRMP will ultimately be a
planning document that will provide a system for addressing water infrastructure needs within the
City. The IWRMP will improve the long-term management and protection of water resources in
Easthampton while supporting planning and development goals. The development of the IWRMP
was an intensive process of studying existing conditions through a series of parallel investigations
of each water system and then integrating the findings of each investigation into a prioritized set
of recommendations. A goal of the IWRMP is to provide a plan that addresses Easthampton’s
needs in a sustainable and cost-effective manner.
Existing Conditions
The majority of Easthampton is located above the Barnes Aquifer, the community’s drinking water
source. Protecting this high-quality water source is an important goal for Easthampton and, in
particular, its Department of Public Works (DPW)through maintenance of the water, wastewater,
and stormwater systems. The need for protection of the Aquifer is clear, since it is the City’s only
water source. Note that some contamination of the aquifer has already occurred, resulting in the
need for the City to treat the water from its largest production wells (Pines Well and the Hendrick
Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

City of Easthampton ES-1 December 2018
Street Wellfield) to remove the volatile organic compound trichloroethylene (TCE), a solvent used
in manufacturing.
Surface waters throughout the City are also treasured and valuable assets. Some of the surface
waters in Easthampton that have been assessed by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) show contamination. The main surface waters in
Easthampton and the contaminants found are:
Waterbody Contaminants, if any

Unimpaired for some uses and not assessed for others; meets the
Broad Brook
needs of fish, other aquatic life and wildlife
Escherichia coli (E. coli)
Connecticut River
PCBs in fish tissue
Danks Pond Not assessed
Lower Mill Pond Non-native aquatic plants
Manhan River E. coli
Nutrient/ eutrophication biological indicators
Nashawannuck Pond Total Phosphorus
Non-native aquatic plants; No TMDL Required
Turbidity
Oxbow
Non-native aquatic plants; No TMDL Required
White Brook Not assessed
Wilton Brook Non-native aquatic plants
TMDL = total maximum daily load
Source: Massachusetts Year 2014 Integrated List of Waters, Final Listing of the Condition of
Massachusetts’ Waters Pursuant to Sections 305(b), 314 and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, prepared
by MassDEP Bureau of Water Resources
Currently no water bodies in Easthampton have a total maximum daily load (TMDL). If a water
body has a contaminant that requires a TMDL, then limits through programs such as the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for point source and non-point source
control may be required in the future for discharges to that waterbody. There are specific
requirements for stormwater pollution prevention related to impaired waters that are outlined in
the 2016 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit. Easthampton will need
to address these stormwater requirements through investigation and investments in stormwater
infrastructure.
According to the City of Eastampton Master Plan, Easthampton is almost completely built out
based on the existing zoning regulations. In 2007 only 4.3% of the 5,960 parcels in the City,
representing 10.2% of the total land area in the City, was not developed and developable.

Easthampton is, therefore, focusing development efforts on infilling within the City center and
other built areas that are currently underutilized. The success of this strategy can be seen in the
re-development of a number of the old mills in the City.
The population of Easthampton is predicted to increase to 17,540 persons by 2035, an increase

of 9.4% from the 2014 population of 16,066. The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC)
is estimating this increase due to the City being perceived as a desirable place to live. Evaluations
of the capacities of the drinking water and wastewater systems assumed a future population of
17,540 persons.
The majority of buildings are provided with City water through the water distribution system
(99.8%) and have access to the City wastewater collection system (98.7%). Exceptions to the
wastewater system include 80 buildings in outlying areas. There are no plans to extend the
collection system to these area as the cost per parcel would be high and there are no apparent
recurring failures or areas with poor soil condition that would warrant an environmental need to
connect. Only 22 houses do not have access to City water. There are no plans to extend the
water distribution system to those homes.
Wastewater Infrastructure
The City of Easthampton owns, operates and maintains the following wastewater infrastructure:
• 3.8 MGD capacity wastewater treatment facility (WWTF)
• 18 municipal wastewater pump stations
• 88 miles of wastewater collection system
Wastewater Treatment Facility
The WWTF is meeting all permit obligations. The facility was originally constructed for primary
treatment only in the 1940s. It was upgraded in 1973 to provide secondary wastewater treatment,
then again in 1987 to improve its solids handling facilities. In the 1990s the headworks, plant
water system, gravity thickeners, secondary clarifiers, and dechlorination system were upgraded.
Some of the treatment facility structures still in use were built as part of the primary treatment
facility construction in the 1940s and are now over 70 years old. In addition, many other treatment
facility structures and much of the treatment facility equipment was installed as part of the
secondary treatment upgrade in the 1970s and are now over 40 years old; most of these

equipment components are beyond their expected service lives. Generally, the older equipment
requires greater maintenance and, in some cases, replacement parts are now difficult to obtain.
We anticipate that, over the next 20 years, most of the older equipment will require replacement.
A condition assessment was performed at the WWTF as part of this evaluation that provides the
City with a prioritized list of recommended improvements
Due to the age and condition of much of the existing equipment at the WWTF, existing motors
and drives are not as energy efficient as the newer equipment available today. Energy efficiency
upgrades provide an opportunity to reduce operating costs at the WWTF. Aeration is the largest
consumer of energy at the WWTF, followed by building systems and pumping. Improvements
targeting these areas can reduce the overall energy use at the treatment facility.
A condition assessment at the WWTF generated a total of 417 items requiring improvements over
the next 20 years at a capital cost of $12.6 million.
Outfall
There are two outfalls from the WWTF. Because of the high cost of eliminating either the
Connecticut River or Manhan River outfalls, we recommend that the City continue its current
mode of operation, using the Connecticut River outfall as the primary outfall and only discharging
to the Manhan River outfall during high flow and river level conditions.
Relocation of the Connecticut River outfall piping to either East Street or adjacent to the Manhan
Rail Trail was considered. However, due to the construction difficulties (deep excavation) and
associated high costs related to both relocation alternatives, relocation is not recommended.
To eliminate root intrusion, extend the life of the outfall piping, and improve access for
maintenance, we recommend that the City:
• Line the Connecticut River outfall piping ($3,471,000), and
• Construct an access road over the outfall pipe ($850,000).

Wastewater Pump Stations
There are 18 municipal wastewater pump

stations in Easthampton. The pump stations vary
in size, style, and complexity depending, in part,
on the size of their service areas and the
technologies that were available when they were
installed. The larger pump stations, which
include the Lovefield Street, Daley Field, Liberty
Street, Hendrick Street and Mount Tom pump
Lovefield St. Pump Station Site
stations, are multi-level facilities with the
following components:
• Below-grade concrete wetwells
• Below-grade concrete or steel (in the case of the Hendrick Street Pump Station) drywells
where the pumps are located
• Above-grade masonry buildings where the electrical components and controls are located
• Standby generators
• Influent channels with grinders (at the Lovefield Street, Daley Field, and Liberty Street
Pump Stations only)
The remaining pumping facilities are either submersible, package wet pit/dry pit, or ejector-type
stations.
The condition assessment of the wastewater pump stations generated a total of 275 items
requiring improvements over the next 20 years at a capital cost of approximately $6.2 million.
However, the need for some of these improvements would be avoided if some of the pump
stations are eliminated or replaced, as described below.
The elimination of four pump stations, the Lownds Avenue, Ballard Street, East Street North and
Pomeroy Meadow Road Pump Stations, appears feasible, based on a preliminary assessment to
determine if they could be eliminated and replaced with gravity sewers. The total cost to eliminate
these four pump stations is estimated at $2,163,000. Some of this cost would be offset by
reductions in the 20-year capital needs, as well as elimination of the operation and maintenance

(O&M) requirements for these pump stations. If the City decides to pursue elimination of these
pump stations, a detailed design is recommended to confirm the feasibility of their elimination and
develop more accurate construction costs.
The Liberty Street Pump Station is currently significantly oversized and requires significant
improvements, especially in the wetwell area. As such, we recommend that the City consider
replacement of this facility with a smaller capacity pump station better suited for current and
projected future flows in this service area. The capital cost to replace this pump station was
estimated at approximately $549,000.
Wastewater Collection System
The City of Easthampton is served by a separate sanitary sewer system consisting of

approximately 82 miles of mainline gravity sewers and 6 miles of pump station force mains and
low-pressure sewers. The sewers in the collection system range in diameter from 2-inch low
pressure sewers to 36-inch diameter interceptor sewers; the majority of the sewers in the
collection system are 8-inch diameter (72%).
Approximately 25% of the City’s sewer system is over 100 years old and approximately 40% of
the sewer system is over 70 years old. In comparison, the expected service life of a sewer pipe
is typically reported to be in the range of 50 to 100 years. As such, we anticipate that sewer
system improvements will be needed over the next 20 years to replace or rehabilitate old sewer
lines.
Field investigations were performed to collect information on the condition of the wastewater
collection system and to locate sources of clean water (infiltration and inflow) entering the
collection system. Clean water (groundwater and stormwater) entering the sewer system is a
concern because it reduces the capacity of the collection system and pump stations to convey
sanitary flow, reduces the capacity of the treatment facility to treat sanitary flow, and results in
increased operating costs. Infiltration is groundwater that enters the sewer system through leaky
pipes and manholes, while inflow is extraneous water (typically rainwater or groundwater)
discharged directly into the sewer system from a distinct source, such as a sump pump, roof leader,
foundation drain, yard drain, manhole cover, or catch basin. Inflow is often directly related to the
quantity of rainfall that a sewer system experiences.
The field investigations included:

• Flow isolation gauging (36,800± feet)
• Sewer television inspections (16,200± feet)
• Manhole inspections (166 manholes)
• Dyed water testing (36 locations)
• Dyed water flooding (6 locations)
Structural defects were observed within many of the sewers and manholes inspected and, in
some cases, were significant. These defects include cracked pipe, pipe with holes in them,
broken pipe, partially collapsed pipe, cracked/broken manhole covers, deteriorated manhole
rungs, and deteriorated concrete/mortar within manholes. Structural defects were of greatest
concern within the sewers on Cherry Street, East Green Street, Mayher Street, Underwood
Avenue and Union Street.
A total of approximately 113,700 gpd of infiltration was measured through flow isolation gauging
and estimated through manhole inspections. In addition, infiltration was observed, but not
quantified, within the sewers on O’Neill Street, Maple Street, Pine Street, Union Street and in the
White Brook Interceptor through the sewer television inspections.
Infiltration was determined to be most significant on the following streets:
• Cherry St. • O’Neill St. • Underwood Ave.

• Clark St. • Pine St. • Union St.
• Oliver St.
A total of 44,700 gpd of inflow was identified and two cross-connections between the sanitary
sewer system and the storm drainage system were identified through dyed water testing/flooding.
The need for wastewater collection system improvements over the next 20 years was assessed
based on sewer and manhole age, condition, the presence of infiltration/inflow, and regulatory
requirements, such as reducing the potential for sanitary sewer overflows to occur. Approximately
41,000 feet or 9% of the total length of gravity sewers in the City’s wastewater collection system
were reviewed as part of this evaluation. In addition, 166 manholes were reviewed as part of this
evaluation or 8% of the total number of manholes in the sewer system. This inspection data, in
conjunction with sewer age information, was used to estimate some of the needs of the
wastewater collection system over the next 20 years.

Because less than 10% of the sewer system was evaluated in this study, we recommend that the
City establish a program to continue to assess its sewer system through:
1. Television inspections
2. Manhole inspections
3. The development of rehabilitation recommendations, based on the additional
investigations noted in Items 1 and 2 above, that can be included in the City’s future capital
improvements plans
Drinking Water Infrastructure
The City of Easthampton owns, operates and maintains a drinking water system containing the
following water infrastructure:
• A Water Treatment Facility
• One well field
• Four wells
• 3 storage tanks
• 130 miles of water mains
Evaluations of the condition, capacity, and permit compliance of these system components were
completed as part of the IWRMP. Based on the condition assessment, 192 individual upgrades
are recommended for implementation over the next 20 years, at a cost of $7,360,000.
The higher priority upgrades were:
• Replacement well(s) at the Hendrick Street Wellfield.

• Installation of a sodium hypochlorite chemical feed system at the Hendrick Street Water
Treatment Facility.
• SCADA system replacement.
• High head pump replacement (dependent on sites selected for pump replacement). The
energy efficiency improvement will reduce operating costs.
Water Supply
Easthampton’s Average Day Demand (ADD) and Maximum Day Demand (MDD) averaged over
the past five years are 1.52 million gallons per day (MGD) and 2.83 MGD, respectively. Under

the most conservative demand scenario, which was calculated utilizing a future residential water
use of 65 residential gallons per capita day (RGPCD) and a future unaccounted-for water (UAW)
percentage at the current 2011-2015 average (21.9%), the 2035 ADD and MDD were projected
to be 1.77 MGD and 3.31 MGD, respectively.
Easthampton’s residential water use consistently meets its Water Management Act (WMA)
registration performance standard of 65 RGPCD. However, the City reported UAW values above
their WMA Permit performance standard of 10%. As part of the Sustainable Water Management
Initiative (SWMI) revisions to the WMA regulations, the City may be required in the future to
implement minimization measures to reduce the environmental impacts of its withdrawals. Based
on a review of the City’s current conservation and demand management measures, the following
additional measures are recommended for implementation:
• Complete leak detection surveys of the entire water distribution system every 3 years;
• Create a formalized repair program in accordance with AWWA Manual 36;
• Ensure 100% metering of the distribution system;
• Create and maintain a Meter Evaluation Program;
• Create a detailed accounting system to estimate confidently estimated municipal use
(CEMU) values on an annual basis to ensure that every authorized use is being properly
documented including unmetered municipal use.
• Develop a Public Education and Outreach Program; and
• Retrofit municipally-owned public buildings with water saving devices.
These actions focus on maintaining compliance with the City’s WMA Permit and also reducing
UAW.
Water Supply Analysis
The available supply of drinking water frothe Brook Steet Well is limited b its WMA Permit, which
limits Easthampton’s water withdrawals from that well. The other wells in the City a grandfathered
registered from the permitting process unless the City wans to increased the registered
withdrawals. Because there is no redundant blower at the water treatment facility, the treatment
process is not considered a reliable source for planning purposes. Both the Pines Well and
Hendrick Street Wellfield must be treated at the facility to remove TCE. Without these sources
there is not an adequate level of water to meet peak day demands. If a redundant blower is

installed, Easthampton would have 0.76 MGD of surplus drinking water on a future maximum day
basis.
This supply surplus may be considered for use in long-term water system expansion or growth
within the City beyond the projections of this report, or be sold to another community.
Water Treatment
The water treatment evaluation included operational, treatment performance, and treatment
enhancement assessments. The following recommendations are based on the evaluation:
• Operations staffing seems to be at minimal level. Add one or more junior operators to be
mentored by the experienced staff as a means of proactive succession planning.
• Some chemical additions are not paced to flow. Improvements are recommended to pace
chemical dosage to flow in all chemical applications throughout the system.
• A second blower at the facility is recommended for process reliability.
• Continue measuring the unregulated contaminants so that any significant increase in
concentration can be detected, and monitor the progression of regulatory status as it
evolves.
• Add total organic carbon (TOC) to the quarterly monitoring program.
• Begin monitoring for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
(PFOS) compounds according to MassDEP guidance.
• As a precaution increase monitoring of nitrate and nitrite at the Brook Street Well.
• Replace chlorine gas system with liquid sodium hypochlorite chemical feed system to
address safety risk to operators and to enhance operational control.
• Flow pace chlorine dosing.
• Replace pumps and motor.
• Replace orifice plates with magnetic flow meter for improved accuracy and reduced
headloss.
Distribution System
A hydraulic model of the Easthampton distribution system was updated and expanded to evaluate
the drinking water distribution system. The system was evaluated for needs in the following areas:
water system pressure, fire flow availability, water age, storage, head loss gradient, and water
system interconnections. A prioritized list of streets for water main replacements was also

developed based on the model results and an evaluation of the pipe age and material. Based on
the distribution system analysis the following, among others, are recommended:
• Upgrade the water mains on East Street, Lyman Street, and Park Street to improve fire
flow.
• Decommission the Mt. Tom storage tank as it is not needed for storage or fire flow.
• Check the water qualiy at the end of Reservation Road.
• Change the operational controls of the well pumps and water tank levels to reduce the
water age in the distribution system and water tanks, thereby improving water quality and
safety.
• Rehabilitate with lining, if possible, or replace the 12-inch asbestos concrete water main
on Mechanic Street as this location has experienced numerous recent breaks.
• Replace the 4-inch cast iron water main on Adams Street as this location has experienced
numerous recent breaks.
Stormwater Infrastructure
Stormwater is a necessary City utility, and adequate operation and maintenance is critical to
protect public health and safety of residents, promote clean drinking water, protect the natural
environment and to ensure operation of local businesses. To assist with proper operation and
maintenance, it is important to understand what stormwater assets exist within the community.
As part of this IWRMP, the City’s stormwater management system was mapped in GIS, using a
combination of record drawings, City staff input and field observation. Based on the mapping
completed, Easthampton is responsible for the following stormwater infrastructure:
• 2,874 catch basins
• 191 outfalls
• 71 miles of drain lines
• 80 miles of publicly maintained roadways
• 54 culverts
• 3 hydrodynamic separators
Water quality evaluations, an outfall analysis completed in 2002, and the work in this IWRMP,
were used to evaluate the possibility of illicit connections. The outfalls were prioritized into four
levels, with 76 outfalls falling into the high-priority level and four into the problem outfall level.

MS4 General Permit
Through the NPDES program, the EPA nationally regulates the discharge of stormwater runoff
that is transported into local water bodies via Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s).
The City of Easthampton is charged by the EPA with operating and maintaining its MS4 to manage
stormwater runoff, as well as to protect public health and safety, preserve environmental
resources, and safeguard the water resources that contribute to the City’s character.
EPA and MassDEP originally authorized Easthampton to discharge stormwater in 2003 under a
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems, known as the “Small MS4 General Permit.” Under this permit, the City has developed
and implemented a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) to reduce the potential for
contamination of stormwater runoff.
The Small MS4 Program contains six (6) elements called minimum control measures (MCMs)
that, when implemented, should result in a significant reduction in pollutants discharged into
receiving waters. The MCMs are:
1. Public Education and Outreach;
2. Public Involvement and Participation;
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) (Appendix T of this IWRMP Report);
4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control;
5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management; and
6. Good Housekeeping and Pollution Prevention.
The 2003 Small MS4 Permit expired in May 2008, but remained in full force and effect until the
replacement permit issued on April 13, 2016 became effective on July 1, 2018. The reissued
NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Small MS4 in Massachusetts
substantially increases stormwater management requirements and mandates specific timelines
for compliance. A draft Stormwater Management Plan was developed as part of this IWRMP to
be consistent with the requirements of the 2016 Small MS4 General Permit for Massachusetts.
Once implemented, the Stormwater Management Plan will satisfy the requirements for
compliance under the Small MS4 General Permit.

The new General Permit is more prescriptive than the 2003 General Permit, and builds upon the
regulations already in place. The new General Permit substantially increases stormwater
management requirements and mandates specific timelines for compliance. A few of the major
differences for each minimum control measure are:
• Public Education and Outreach: More specific messages required and prescriptive
deadlines compared to the 2003 General Permit.
• Public Involvement and Participation: Specific requirements to provide opportunity for
public review and input on the SWMP annually.
• Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program: Add interconnections to
the outfall inventory. Delineate catchment areas and prioritize catchment investigations.
Perform dry weather screening and sampling of high priority and low priority MS4
interconnections and outfall by the end of Year 3. Perform wet weather screening in the
spring for the catchments that indicate the presence of one or more System Vulnerability
Factors. Complete catchment investigations. For impaired waters without TMDLs,
implement a multi-step approach to address the discharges including BMPs, source
identification, and an evaluation of retrofit feasibility.
• Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control: If it does not already exist, add
inspection and enforcement to the site plan review procedure.
• Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment: For new
development, retain the first inch of runoff from all impervious surfaces on site, or provide
pollutant removal with a BMP. For redevelopment, retain the first 0.80 inches of runoff
from all impervious surfaces on site or provide pollutant removal with a BMP. Offsite
mitigation may be used for redevelopment projects.
• Good Housekeeping and Pollution Prevention: Develop a program to repair and
rehabilitate the MS4 infrastructure. Sweep/clean municipal streets once in the spring.
Include all activities that occur at a municipal facility and potential pollutants associated
with each activity in the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for the facility.
There are increased requirements of the IDDE program and public education and outreach
program based on the nutrient and E. coli pollutants in some of Easthampton’s surface waters.
Stormwater Management Program
The Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) is the document used to describe and detail the
activities and measures that will be implemented to meet the terms and conditions of the U.S.

EPA’s General Permits for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s. A draft SWMP was developed as
part of this IWRMP and includes other requirements of the Small MS4 General Permit, such as a
Notice of Intent (NOI), Authorization to Discharge letter, and documentation showing Endangered
Species Act and Historic Properties eligibility criteria.
Stormwater Costs
Easthampton currently funds stormwater infrastructure maintenance and repair through the
Sewer Enterprise Fund, the costs of which are not tracked separately. Work is completed by the
Collection System Maintenance Crew. These costs were estimated, along with the costs of
compliance with the 2016 MS4 General Permit, and the costs of the delayed infrastructure repair
projects. The estimated annual costs are shown in the Table below:
Estimated Annual Stormwater Infrastructure Costs
Project or Expense Category Estimated Cost
Infrastructure Capital Needs $460,000
MS4 Compliance $160,000
Subtotal $620,000
Existing Expenditures (from Sewer Enterprise Fund) $692,500
Total Estimated Annual Stormwater Costs $1,312,500
Note: All costs in November 2016 dollars. Price escalations not included.
Preliminary Stormwater Funding Evaluation
To pay for the increase in annual stormwater costs more funds would need to be collected. A
preliminary evaluation was done on the various options for collecting funds for stormwater
expenses. The analysis included a preliminary rate analysis looking at different methods for
charging a stormwater fee. We recommend that the City consider development of a stormwater
utility/enterprise fund to establish a reliable funding source to address stormwater infrastructure
and permit requirements. A more detailed Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study is recommended.
Capital Improvement Plan
The analyses of Easthampton’s water systems resulted in a list of identified needs that we have
recommended that Easthampton address over the next 20 years. In the condition assessments
of the wastewater and water infrastructure, much of the equipment will need to be replaced within

the 20-year time frame. Through the evaluations of treatment processes, system components,
and regulatory requirements, areas of need and improvement beyond the life expectancy of the
equipment have also been identified. For each system- wastewater, water, and stormwater, a list
of prioritized needs was compiled that contains projects and equipment replacement or upgrade
that are recommended to be completed within the next 5 years. The combined total project costs
for the first 5-Year CIP are $21,820,275. These 5-year CIPs were developed separately by
identifying and prioritizing recommended projects within each of the water, sewer, and stormwater
resource areas. The lists were then compiled to create a 5-year integrated water resources
management capital improvement plan, which is included as Table ES-1.
All projects are stand-alone projects. However, the recommendation to change the waer
distribution pumping and storage system operations (W-O&M-OP-1) should be followed by
cleaning of the Drury Lane storage tank (W-ST-DL-1).
Rate Impacts
The capital projects identified in the five-year CIP will require additional investment above what is
currently available through fees collected through the existing water and sewer rates. For the
purposes of this preliminary analysis of rate impacts we assumed the following:
• The cost of operations will increase each year by 3% based on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
budget
• The expenses described in the proposed CIP for the proposed improvements will begin to
be paid for in FY2020
• The existing debt will decrease by 3% annually
• The improvement projects included in the CIP will be fully funded through the water/sewer
user fees; funds will not be borrowed
• The CIP costs will be spread out evenly over 5 years
• The CIP project costs will escalate each year by 3% due to inflation
• 85% of the fees charged will be actually collected
• Opportunities for savings have not been included in this assessment (e.g., some projects
will result in improved energy efficiency, resulting in a reduction in annual energy costs)
The current rates compared to the rates in the first year (FY 20) that would be required to fully
fund the 5-year CIP through cash in the yearly budget cycle, are shown below:

Utility Current Proposed (Year 1)
Water $3.05 / 100 cu. Ft. $4.19 / 100 cu. Ft.
Sewer $4.50 / 100 cu. Ft. $10.48 / 100 cu. Ft.
Stormwater $0 / ERU / year $148 / ERU / year
ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit
Changes to any one of the assumptions will affect the estimated rate impacts. The rates projected
here are preliminary and will require further refinement through the detailed budgeting process.
The preliminary estimated rates provided here are solely an indication of the scale of the increases
that would be needed to fully fund the 5-year CIP program and do not necessarily reflect proposed
rate increases.

Table ES-1: Combined 5-Year CIP
Project Ranking Summary - Combined Consequence Factors
Total Weight 7.0
City of Easthampton IWRMP 2018 - 2022 POF Threshold COF Threshold
Weight Weight Weight Weight values from 1-5 values from 1-5
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Regulatory Permit/ Code / Likelihood of Total Estimated
Risk/ Public Health Environ. Risk/ Opportunity
Project ID#1 Project Title Project Description / Justification System Project Type Driver(s) if Immediacy Cost/Benefit Regulatory Failure (or of Conseq. Factor3 project Cost (Year
Opportunity2 Impact Impact Score (1-25)4
Applicable Violation Success) 0)
5 - Immediate
WW TF RW-11 RAS/WAS Bldg-Hatch Signage Provide signage at Dewatering Pump Pit WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 500
Violation
RAS/WAS Bldg-Stair Guardrail Add intermediate guardrail at opening that is too 5 - Immediate
WW TF RW-7 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 1,700
Addition large to meet OSHA requirements Violation
Control Bldg-Chlorine Feed and
Add toe plates to provide protection for workers 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-9 Storage Rooms Exterior Walkway WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 2,100
below Violation
Improvements
Fire Protection Improvements- Seal room penetrations to improve safety-Shop & 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-20 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 3,300
Control Bldg Storage Room, Boiler Room and Generator Room Violation
Propane tank and confined space signage, anchor 5 - Immediate
WW TF S-1 Site Safety Improvements WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 3,700
propane tank Violation
Emergency Lights/Exit Signs- 5 - Immediate
WW TF HW-1 Emergency Lights/Exit Signs-to improve safety WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 4,000
Headworks Bldg Violation
Plant Water Bldg-Safety Repair exposed ventilation fan wiring, place 5 - Immediate
WW TF PW-4 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 4,300
Improvements confine space signage Violation
Fire Protection Improvements- 5 - Immediate
WW TF PW-5 New fire protection system to improve safety WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 6,000
Plant Water Bldg Violation
Provide guardrail along cross-over platform (no
Control Bldg-Pump Room Safety 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-5 guardrail) and on the stairs from the 1st floor WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 6,400
Improvements Violation
(guardrail on 1 side only)
Fire Protection Improvements- New fire protection system to improve safety- 5 - Immediate
WW TF HW-2 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 6,500
Headworks Bldg Headworks Bldg Violation
Hendrick Street Treatment
Replace old exit signage/emergency lighting BUILDING 5 - Immediate
W TF HS-2 Facility & Office - Building W (P1) CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 5-Very High 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 7,200
that is currently beyond life expectancy. CODE Violation
Upgrades
Control Bldg Emergency 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-19 Emergency Lights/Exit Signs-to improve safety WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 8,000
Lights/Exit Signs Violation
Relocate scum pump disconnect switches so that
they are accessible, provide labels for sodium
hypochlorite tanks, provide ramp over low
Control Bldg-Safety 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-15 sodium hypochlorite piping (tripping hazard), WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 12,600
remove obstructions near MCC in Shop and
Storage Room, install caution signs on low
hanging pipes in Pump Room
Replace corroded guardrail in wetwell and install
Lovefield St. Pump Station- 5 - Immediate
WW PS LF-4 new Intermediate Floor level guardrail-safety WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 15,400
Replace Guardrail Violation
concern
Chlorine Contact Chamber- 5 - Immediate
WW TF CC-4 Modify to meet MA bldg code WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 23,800
Guardrail Modifications Violation
Replace corroded guardrail and grating in
Daley Field Pump Station-Safety 5 - Immediate
WW PS DF-4 wetwell area, install new guardrail at WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 24,200
Intermediate Floor level
Aeration Tanks-Safety Install new guardrail and replace damaged 5 - Immediate
WW TF AT-2 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 24,900
Improvements grating Violation
Secondary Clarifiers-Safety Install new guardrail where wall is less than 42" 5 - Immediate
WW TF SC-1 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 25,100
Improvements above grade Violation
Install new handrail and grating and replace 5 - Immediate
WW TF S-4 Influent Channel Improvements WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 29,600
damaged grating for worker safety Violation
Office air conditioner does not meet MA Bldg
Control Bldg Lab and Office-HVAC 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-18 Code; lab HVAC is old, functions poorly, and is WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 93,500
inadequate for the space
Ballard St. Pump Station 5 - Immediate
WW PS BA-1 Replace pump station with gravity sewers WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 570,000
Elimination Violation
Develop and implement a public education

WMA- WMA Compliance - Public
W CO and outreach program regarding water use W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5 - Immediate Violation 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 7,000
6 Education and Outreach
for compliance with WMA Permit
Page 1 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
WMA- WMA Compliance - Formalized Develop and implement a formal leak repair 5 - Immediate
W CO W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 In House
2 Repair Program program for compliance with WMA Permit. Violation
WMA- WMA Compliance - 100% Install meters on all unmetered users to 5 - Immediate
3 Metering comply with WMA Permit. Violation
WMA- WMA Compliance - Meter Develop and implement a meter evalaution 5 - Immediate
4 Evaluation Program program for compliance with WMA Permit. Violation
Develop and maintaing a database for

WMA- WMA Compliance - CEMU 5 - Immediate
W CO tracking of unmetered municipal uses for W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.0 5.00 25.0 In House
5 Accounting System Violation
compliance with WMA Permit
WMA Compliance - Water Retrofit all Town-owned buildings with
WMA-
W CO Saving Devices at Public water saving devices for compliance with W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 5 - Immediate Violation 5.0 5.00 25.0 In House
7
Buildings WMA Permit
Replace pump station with smaller submersible
Liberty St. Pump Station 3- Potential
WW PS LI-1 station; existing pump station is oversized for WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 2-Low 4-High 4-High 5.0 3.14 15.7 $ 549,000
Replacement Violation
current flows
The single PTA blower is a critical failure
Redundant PTA Blower -
point that would reduce the WTP treatment
W TF HS-3 Hendrick Street Treatment W (P3) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.0 3.67 14.7 $ 7,620
capacity to zero. A second blower at the PTA
Facility
is recommended for added redundancy.
Replace chlorine gas system with liquid
W TF HS-11 Replace Chlorine Gas System sodium hypochlorite chemical feed system W CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 3-Moderate 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 3.67 14.7 $ 36,000
to address safety
Nonotuck Pump Station - Replace old electric unit heater that is past
W PS NT-2 W (P1) CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.67 13.3 $ 7,200
HVAC Upgrades estimated service life.
Pines Pump Station - SCADA Install a temperature sensor at the Pines
W PS PN-1 W (P1) CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.67 13.3 $ 12,000
Upgrades Pump Station.
Nonotuck Pump Station - Install a temperature sensor at the Nonotuck
W PS NT-1 W (P1) CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.67 13.3 $ 12,000
SCADA Upgrades Pump Station.
Install or replace the following equipment:
1. New air conditioning units (3)
W TF HS-1 Facility & Office - HVAC W (P1) CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.67 13.3 $ 34,200
2. Outside Air Damper & Actuator (7)
Upgrades
3. Supply Fan Inlet Filter/ Screen
SW IMP 2
Ferry Street culvert improvements SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 3.33 13.3 $ 150,000
SW IMP 1
Hendrick Street culvert improvements SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 3.33 13.3 $ 200,000
Hendrick St. Pump Station- Replace corroded door, and roof and ceiling (roof 3- Potential
WW PS HE-2 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 5-Very High 4.0 3.29 13.1 $ 47,000
Structural Improvements is in poor condition and leaking) Violation
3- Potential
WW TF OF-1 Short-Term Outfall Improvements Clean siphon section WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 5-Very High 4.0 3.29 13.1 $ 50,000
Violation
3- Potential
WW CS 6 Union St. sewer lining Line sewers with structural defects WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 5-Very High 4.0 3.29 13.1 $ 164,700
Violation
Change storage tank operations to reduce
3- Potential
W O&M OP-1 Operational Alternative E or F water age in storage tanks and increase W (P4) PROGRAM Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 5-Very High 4.0 3.29 13.1 In House
Violation
water quality.
Replace roof (in poor condition), seal northern
Daley Field Pump Station-
wall (groundwater infiltration), replace corroded 3- Potential
WW PS DF-3 Structural/Architectural WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 5-Very High 4.0 3.14 12.6 $ 113,400
doors, replace deteriorated concrete landing at Violation
Improvements
ext. door, replace failed coatings
Lovefield St. Pump Station-
Equipment is old and generator cannot run 2 3- Potential
WW PS LF-6 Replacement of Generator and WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 4-High 4.0 3.14 12.6 $ 213,000
pumps simulataneously Violation
Transfer Switch
Page 2 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Emerald Place - outlet structure Outlet structure replacement and slope 3- Potential
SW IMP 3 SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 4-High 4.0 3.14 12.6 $250,000
replacement stabilization Violation
Lownds Ave. Pump Station 3- Potential
WW PS LO-1 Replace pump station with gravity sewers WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 3-Moderate 5-Very High 4.0 3.14 12.6 $ 608,000
Control Bldg-Generator Replace generator and transfer switch due to age
WW TF CB-14 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 315,800
Improvements and code violation
Daley Field Pump Station- 3- Potential
WW PS DF-10 Old, unreliable, and has high annual cost WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 4,400
Telemetry Improvements Violation
Pace chemical dosage to flow in all chemical

W O&M OP-2 Chemical dosing control W PROGRAM Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 5,000
applications utilized throughout the system
Aeration Tanks-Replace Effluent 3- Potential
WW TF AT-5 Replace corroded weir WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 18,000
Weirs Violation
Perform an evaluation of disinfectant
Disinfectant Residual Control 3- Potential
W O&M ST-1 residual control in storage tanks to improve W (P5) PROGRAM Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 25,000
System Evaluation Violation
water quality.
3- Potential
WW TF S-3 Chain-Link Fence Improvements Replace 400 ft. of damaged/missing fence WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 34,100
Violation
Replace old panelboards, transformers, service 3- Potential
WW PS LF-5 Electrical Distribution, lighting and WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 3-Moderate 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 51,100
entrance, lights and receptacles Violation
receptacle Improvements
Hendrick St. Pump Station-

3- Potential
WW PS HE-3 Electrical Distribution, lighting and Equipment is old WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 3-Moderate 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 54,400
Violation
Mt. Tom Pump Station-Generator
3- Potential
WW PS MT-4 and Transfer Switch Replace old generator and transfer switch WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 59,600
Violation
Improvements
3- Potential
WW PS HE-5 Replacement of Generator and Equipment is old WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 3-Moderate 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 65,300
Violation
Transfer Switch
Line sewers with structural defects; significant 3- Potential
WW CS 4 Underwood Ave. sewer lining WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 3-Moderate 4-High 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 93,000
infiltration source Violation
Replacement of Generator, 3- Potential
WW PS DF-7 Equipment is old WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 3-Moderate 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 111,700
Transfer Switch, Fuel Tank and Violation
Fuel Lines
IDDE Plan Implementation -
MS4 requirement to develop and implement an
including Outfall 3- Potential
SW MS4 1 IDDE Plan, including inspection and sampling of SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.0 3.00 12.0 $192,000
Inspections/sampling - annual Violation
outfalls and junction manholes.
costs
3- Potential
WW CS 2 Cherry St. Sewer Replacement Replace collapsed pipe WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 2-Low 5-Very High 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 323,400
Violation
Distribution System
Upgrade the 6-inch water main on Park
Improvements - Park Street 3- Potential
W DS Pipe-1 Street from Greenwood Street to Payson W (P7) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 5-Very High 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 400,000
from Greenwood Street to Violation
Street to increase AFF.
Payson Street
Distribution System Upgrade 2,000 feet of 6-inch water main on
Improvements - Lyman Street Lyman Street from Ballard Street to Florence W 3- Potential
W DS Pipe-2 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 462,000
from Ballard Street to Florence Road with 8-inch water main to increase AFF (P15) Violation
Road for the Lathrop Retirement Community.
Aeration Tanks-Aerator 3- Potential
WW TF AT-1 New mechnical aerators-Tanks 1, 3 and 4 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 1,064,100
Page 3 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Distribution System Upgrade 8-inch water main on East Street

Improvements - East Street from Ferry Street to Wilder Avenue with new W 3- Potential
W DS Pipe-3 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 1,400,000
from Ferry Street to Wilder 8-inch to increase AFF for the area east of (P15) Violation
Avenue Underwood Avenue.
City-wide Unidrectional Perform city-wide unidirectional pipe 3- Potential

W O&M OP-3 W (P4) PROGRAM Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 3.00 12.0 In House
Flushing flushing to provide increased water quality. Violation
Control Bldg-Transformer
WW TF CB-16 Critical item that is overheating WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.33 11.7 $ 15,000
Replacement (Compressor Room)
Headworks Bldg-Safety Properly store gas cylinders and replace old gas
WW TF HW-4 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.33 11.7 $ 26,300
Improvements meter
Solids Handling Bldg-Safety Replace steep stairs to lower level, wooden stairs
WW TF SH-7 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.33 11.7 $ 43,500
Improvements to Polymer tank and eye wash station due to age
Mt. Tom Pump Station-Electrical

Replace old panelboards, transformers, service 3- Potential
WW PS MT-3 Distribution, Lights, Receptacles WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 3-Moderate 4.0 2.86 11.4 $ 27,800
entrance, lights, receptacles, and alarms Violation
and alarm Improvements
Maintain municipally-owned BMPs. Includes
3- Potential
SW O&M 3 Maintain structural BMPs initial costs to rehabilitate BMPs so that they SW CONSTRUCTION MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4-High 4.0 2.86 11.4 $50,000
Violation
work as designed.
3- Potential
WW PS DF-5 Electrical Distribution, lighting and Equipment is old WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 3-Moderate 4.0 2.86 11.4 $ 87,700
Violation
Additional costs associated with increased street
Additional street sweeping/catch 3- Potential
SW MS4 12 sweeping and catchbasin cleaning requirements SW CONSTRUCTION MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 3-Moderate 4.0 2.86 11.4 $202,500
basin cleaning - Annual Costs Violation
of the MS4 permit
Industrial Drive headwall 3- Potential
SW IMP 4 Headwall replacement SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4-High 4.0 2.86 11.4 $250,000
replacement Violation
Union Street Transportation
Transportation improvement project between
Improvement Project that will 3- Potential
SW IMP 6 Cottage Street and High Street, to include SW CONSTRUCTION Opportunity A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4-High 4.0 2.86 11.4 $250,000
include significant drainage Violation
significant drainage improvements
improvements
Replace plug valves and clarifier drives;
Primary Clarifiers-Mechanical 3- Potential
WW TF PC-1 components are old and replacement parts are WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 3-Moderate 4.0 2.86 11.4 $ 295,900
difficult to obtain
Cherry Street headwall 3- Potential
SW IMP 5 Headwall replacement SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 2-Low 4-High 4.0 2.71 10.9 $50,000
replacement Violation
Distribution System Replace Mechanic Street water main in-kind
W 3- Potential
W DS Pipe-4 Improvements - Mechanic as this location has experienced numerous CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 2.71 10.9 $ 160,000
(P15) Violation
Street recent breaks.
Line sewers with structural defects on East Green 3- Potential
WW CS 3 Clark St. Area Sewer Lining WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 2-Low 3-Moderate 4.0 2.71 10.9 $ 166,100
St., Grove St., Maple St., & Mayher St. Violation
Replace Adams Street water main in-kind as
Distribution System W 3- Potential
W DS Pipe-5 this location has experienced numerous CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 2.71 10.9 $ 260,000
Improvements - Adams Street (P15) Violation
recent breaks.
3- Potential
WW CS 5 Oliver St. sewer lining Line sewers with structural defects WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 1-Minimal 4-High 4.0 2.71 10.9 $ 283,700
Violation
Repair/replace aging pipes and Typically upgraded during roadway improvement 3- Potential
SW O&M 2 SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 4.0 2.71 10.9 $750,000
structures projects. Violation
Replace electric unit heater and exhuast fan.

Pines Pump Station - W
W PS PN-4 All of this equipment has less than 3 years of CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 6,600
Mechanical Building Upgrades (P11)
remaining service life.
Page 4 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Replace electric unit heater, exhuast fan, and

Nonotuck Pump Station - W
W PS NT-5 outside air damper and actuator. All of this CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 8,400
Mechanical Building Upgrades (P11)
equipment is beyond peak servuice life.
Brook Street Pump Station - Replace current flowmeter and pressure
W PS BR-2 Process and Instrumentation transmitter that are beyond expected service W (P9) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 12,000
Upgrades life.
Replace current flowmeter, pressure
Nonotuck Pump Station -
transmitter, and flood float. All of this
W PS NT-4 Process and Instrumentation W (P9) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 13,000
equipment is beyond its expected service
Upgrades
life.
Replace current flowmeter and pressure
Pines Pump Station - Process transmitter that are beyond expected service
W PS PN-3 W (P9) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 13,200
and Instrumentation Upgrades life. Install an instrusion alarm on the
building.
Replace propellar fans (2), electric unit
heaters (2), and exhaust fan. All of this W
W TF HS-7 Facility & Office - Mechanical CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 21,600
equipment has less than 3 years of (P11)
Building Upgrades
remaining service life.
Install new SCADA panel and PLC. Current
Pines Pump Station - SCADA
W PS PN-2 panels are >20 years beyond expected W (P6) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 24,000
Upgrades
service life.
Brook Street Pump Station -
W PS BR-1 panels are >20 years beyond expected W (P6) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 24,000
SCADA Upgrades
service life.
W PS NT-3 panels are >20 years beyond expected W (P6) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 24,000
SCADA Upgrades
service life.
Hendrick Street Treatment Perform a feasibility study for the
Facility -Cellular installation of cellular based SCADA System
W TF HS-4 W (P6) PROGRAM Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 25,000
Communication Feasibility Improvements due to the unreliability of
Study leased phone line links.
Replace current flowmeter, pressure
Hendrick Street Pump Station -
transmitter, and pumps and motors (3). All
W PS HS-6 Process and Instrumentation W (P9) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 138,000
of this equipment is beyond its expected
Upgrades
service life.
Replace SCADA System Hardware and
Hendrick Street Treatment Software. Current technology and
W TF HS-5 W (P6) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 156,000
Facility - SCADA Upgrades programming is obsolete and >20 years
beyond expected service life
SW O&M 4
Street Sweeper Purchase new street sweeper. SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $250,000
Ashley Circle Pump Station- 3- Potential
WW PS AS-2 Telemetry improvements WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 4.0 2.57 10.3 $ 4,400
Identify municipal properties appropriate for
3- Potential
SW MS4 6 BMP Retrofit Inventory installation of a BMP retrofit for stormwater SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 2-Low 4.0 2.57 10.3 $10,500
Violation
quality improvements
Nitrogen Source Identification 3- Potential
SW MS4 4 Identify sources of Nitrogen pollution SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 2-Low 4.0 2.57 10.3 $23,200
Report Violation
3- Potential
SW MS4 5 BMP Design Design a BMP to address Nitrogen pollution SW CONSTRUCTION MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 2-Low 4.0 2.57 10.3 $50,000
Violation
Ashley Circle Pump Station-Piping Piping and valve replacement, construction of 3- Potential
WW PS AS-1 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 4.0 2.57 10.3 $ 66,100
and Valve Improvements valve vault, new hatch safety grate Violation
Page 5 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Torrey St. Pump Station- 3- Potential
WW PS TO-2 Telemetry improvements WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 2.43 9.7 $ 4,400
Phelps St. Pump Station- 3- Potential
WW PS PH-2 Telemetry improvements WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 2.43 9.7 $ 4,400
Cook Rd. Pump Station Check valve replacement and telemetry 3- Potential
WW PS CO-1 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 2.43 9.7 $ 5,300
Improvements improvements Violation
Torrey St. Pump Station-New 3- Potential
WW PS TO-3 New hatch safety grate to improve safety WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 2.43 9.7 $ 5,700
Hatch Safety Grate Violation
Perform a town wide leak detection survey
WMA- WMA Compliance - Leak
W CO every three years at a minimum for W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4.0 2.43 9.7 $ 15,000
1 Detection Survey
compliance with WMA Permit.
Replace double door and all door hardware
Nonotuck Pump Station - Site
to improve building security. Install stairs W 3- Potential
W PS NT-6 Work & Building CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.0 2.43 9.7 $ 22,200
and railing into basement for safety (P14) Violation
Improvements
purposes.
Hendrick Street Pump Station - Replace electric unit heaters (2) that have W
W PS HS-8 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 4,800
Mechanical Building Upgrades exceeded their service life. (P11)
RAS/WAS Bldg-Misc Structural
WW TF RW-8 Repair cracked floor beam and cracked floor slab WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 6,000
Improvements
Perform regular tank cleaning to improve
W ST DL-1 Cleaning of Drury Lane Tank W (P8) CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 6,000
water quality.
Pines Pump Station - Site
Replace all door hardware and install a cahin W
W PS PN-5 Work & Building CONSTRUCTION Opportunity A 2-Low 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 19,800
link fence to secure the site. (P14)
Improvements
RAS/WAS Bldg-Return Sludge Well Install new plug valves on Return Sludge piping to
WW TF RW-1 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 41,600
Valving allow isolation of secondary clarifiers
Perform wellfield study at Hendrick Street
Hendrick Street - Wellfield W
W WS HSW-1 location to determine feasibility of wellfield CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 75,000
Study (P16)
installation.
Install a mixer with SCADA inputs to reduce
Peaceful Valley Tank - Storage water age. Replace electric unit heater in W
W ST PV-1 CONSTRUCTION Opportunity A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 134,400
Tank Upgrades altitilutde valve vault that is near the end of (P12)
recommended service life.
East St. North Pump Station
WW PS EN-1 Replace pump station with gravity sewers WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 305,000
elimination
Pomeroy Meadow Rd. Pump
WW PS PM-1 Replace pump station with gravity sewers WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 680,000
Station Elimination
Sell water to Southampton as a source of
W DS OP-4 Sell Water W PROGRAM Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3
additional revenue
Conduction additional outreach to target
TMDL Related Outreach - Annual 3- Potential
SW MS4 8 audience to address TMDL requirement of the SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 4.0 2.29 9.1 $17,570
costs Violation
MS4 permit
Develop SWPPPs for Highway garage, transfer 3- Potential
SW MS4 9 SWPPP SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 4.0 2.29 9.1 $32,600
station and stump dump Violation
3- Potential
SW MS4 2 Inspect structural BMPs Annual inspection of municipal owned BMPs SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 4.0 2.29 9.1 $38,000
Violation
Outreach - annual cost including
Conduct outreach to target audiences in 3- Potential
SW MS4 7 Ct River Stormwater Committee SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 4.0 2.29 9.1 $47,210
compliance with the MS4 permit Violation
membership
Annual maintenance, inspection and reporting in 3- Potential
SW MS4 10 SWPPP - Annual Costs SW CONSTRUCTION MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4.0 2.14 8.6 $11,375
compliance with SWPPP Violation
3- Potential
SW MS4 11 Annual training Annual training for SWPPP, IDDE, O&M plan SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4.0 2.14 8.6 $12,300
Violation
Page 6 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Brooks Street Pump Station -
Replace door hardware to improve building W
W PS BR-3 Site Work & Building CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 1,800
security (P14)
Improvements
Replace level transmitter and cellular link,
Drury Lane Tank - Storage Tank W
W ST DL-2 which are more than 20 years beyond CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 14,400
Upgrades (P12)
expected service life.
Control Bldg-Storage Room Roof
WW TF CB-7 Roof hatches leak-replace with built-up roofing WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 14,900
Hatches Removal
Phelps St. Pump Station-New
New hatch safety grate and wetwell size
WW PS PH-1 Hatch Safety Grate and Wetwell WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 15,700
modifications
Size Modifications
Chlorine Contact Chamber-Misc Repair deteriorated concrete and replace failed
WW TF CC-3 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 20,000
Structural Improvements caulk
Aeration Tanks-Structural
WW TF AT-3 Replace caulking and failed concrete WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 24,000
Improvements
Control Bldg-Garage, Shop &
Storage Room and Generator Clean and paint corroded columns and doors,
WW TF CB-4 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 27,200
Room Architectural/ Structural replace missing door hardware
Improvements
WW TF GE-1 Arc Flash Hazard Analysis To improve safety WW Study Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 30,000
Replace check and isolation valves, which are in
RAS/WAS Bldg-Dewatering Pump
WW TF RW-2 wetwell, install in new valve vault, and provide WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 64,500
Pit Improvements
pump lift system to facilitate pump maintenance
Repair concrete, replace caulking, and provide
Primary Clarifiers-Structural
WW TF PC-2 floor coating-primary clarifiers and Special MH WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 73,400
Improvements
No. 4
Solids Handling Bldg-Misc Replace corroded doors and wall girts, repair
WW TF SH-3 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 73,800
Structural Improvements corroded floor deck
Repair spalled concrete on exterior wall and
Gravity Thickeners-Structural
WW TF GT-1 deteriorated concrete on cone, replace interior WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 90,100
Improvements
tank wall coating, recoat corroding stairs
RAS Pumps have exceeded its expected service
RAS/WAS Bldg-Replace RAS
WW TF RW-4 life and need to be larger to meet future permit WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 121,100
Pumps
requirements
Replace RAS pump, WAS pump and scum pump
WW TF RW-3 RAS/WAS Bldg-valve Replacement plug and check valves, which are old and, in WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 133,400
some cases, are difficult to operate
Repair and/or clean & paint corroded/
Headworks Bldg-structural
WW TF HW-5 deteriorated roof components, replace failed WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 140,800
improvements
wall coatings, and replace corroded doors
Inspect portions of sewer system annually (costy
WW O&M 4 TV Inspections/MH Inspections WW Study Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 190,000
for 5-year period)
Purchase new dump truck in order to
W O&M OP-5 Dump Truck W CONSTRUCTION Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 200,000
transport excavator
Complete the following building
improvements:
1. Install Roof mounted Mechanical Exhaust
Vents (2).
Hendick St. Cold Storage
2. Provide full fit-out W
W TF HS-10 Building - Site Work & Building CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 205,200
3. Patch brick wall (P14)
Improvements
4. Replace all doors
5. Fully inspect, repair, and replace timber
roofing
6. Paint interior brick and ceiling
Page 7 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Obtain new equipment to allow City staff to
WW O&M 3 TV Inspection Equipment/vehicle WW PURCHASE Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 225,000
inspect sewers
Assess options for implementing a stormwater
Stormwater Utility Feasibility
SW MS4 3 utility to develop a reliable funding source for SW STUDY Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4 2.00 8.0 $250,000
Study
stormwater infrastructure needs
Lovefield St. Pump Station-Bypass
WW PS LF-9 Install force main bypass connection WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 255,600
Connection
Daley Field Pump Station-Bypass
WW PS DF-11 Install force main bypass connection WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 255,600
Connection
Hendrick St. Pump Station-Bypass
WW PS HE-8 Install force main bypass connection WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 255,600
Connection
Solids Handling Bldg-Polymer
WW TF SH-1 System is old and in poor condition WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 288,800
Feed System Replacement
Lovefield St. Pump Station-New Install new isolation valve at air release valve to
WW PS LF-2 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 308,900
Isolation Valve allow removal of air release valve
Replace old collection system cleaning
WW O&M 2 Pipe/Structure Cleaning Vehicle equipment/vehicles with one new vehicle (Jet WW PURCHASE Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 325,000
rodder/vacuum unit/CB cleaner (clamshell))
Headworks Bldg-Grit Bucket
WW TF HW-3 Units are old and do not work well WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 610,900
Elevators Replacement
Control Bldg-Pump Room Exposed rebar in concrete drainage trench-clean
WW TF CB-6 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 600
Structural Improvements and epoxy paint exposed rebar
Hendrick St. Pump Station-Site
WW PS HE-1 Raise gate boxes to grade WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 1,000
Improvements
W
W WS NON-1 Nonotuck Well Repairs Replace worn shaft on Nonotuck Well CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 1,500
(P16)
WW PS LF-7 Instrumentation and Alarm Old and/or does not operate properly WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 2,200
Improvements
Torrey St. Pump Station-
WW PS TO-1 Mechanical/Electrical Blower replacement WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 4,400
Improvements
Solids Handling Bldg-Belt Filter
WW TF SH-4 Apply coating to protect concrete WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 4,600
Press Containment Area Coating
Mt. Tom Pump Station-Safety
WW PS MT-1 Provide hatch safety grate to improve safety WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 5,700
Improvements
East St. South Pump Station-New
WW PS ES-1 New hatch safety grate to improve safety WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 5,700
Hatch Safety Grate
Headworks Bldg-electrical
WW TF HW-6 Replace old electrical wiring and receptacles WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 6,600
improvements
Plant Water Bldg-Replace Bldg Ext
Joint sealant has failed; door frames are
WW TF PW-2 Expansion Joints and Recoat WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 7,200
corroding
Doors
Chlorine Contact Chamber-
Replace to allow flow to be determined during
WW TF CC-1 Effluent Weir and Level Sensor WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 8,400
high flow periods
Replacement
Flume level instrumentation does not work,
WW PS DF-8 Instrumentation and Alarm WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 14,200
alarm system is old
Improvements
Evaluation and Purchase of
Purchase and implement a new distribution
W O&M OP-6 Distribution Asset Management W PROGRAM Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 15,000
system software
Software
Test & seal pipe joints and short liner; significant
WW CS 1 O'Neill St. sewer improvements WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 15,500
infiltration was measured
Mt. Tom Pump Station- Replace corroded door, replace deteriorated
WW PS MT-2 Architectural/Structural wood blocking at louver and skylight, perform WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 16,000
Improvements minor brick repointing
Page 8 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Mt. Tom Pump Station-HVAC
WW PS MT-5 Replace old fans, unit heaters and louvers WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 18,000
Improvements
Perform study to determine the feasibility of
Maloney Street Well - Rehab W
W WS MAL-1 rehabilitating the Maloney Street Well to obatin CONSTRUCTION Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 25,000
Study (P16)
additional supply
Hendrick St. Pump Station-HVAC
WW PS HE-7 Equipment is old WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 25,600
Improvements
WW PS HE-6 Instrumentation and Alarm Equipment is old WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 28,000
Improvements
WW PS HE-4 Replacement of Motor Equipment is old WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 30,900
Connections and Starters
Oliver St. Pump Station-
WW PS OL-1 Wastewater Pump and Sump Pump replacement WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 31,500
Pump Replacement
Control Bldg-Lab Fume Hood Old and does not work well (cannot control air
WW TF CB-2 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 40,600
Replacement flow)
Replace deteriorated/missing brick masonry,
Control Bldg-Miscellaneous replace corroded door hardware at main
WW TF CB-10 Structural Improvements at Bldg entrance, repair deteriorated concrete steps at WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 41,800
Exterior main entrance, clean and paint crane rail frame
(paint is peeling)
WW PS LF-10 Recoat to protect concrete surfaces WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 49,900
Replace peeling/worn paint
RAS/WAS Bldg-Replace WAS
WW TF RW-5 WAS Pump has exceeded its expected service life WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 66,600
Pump
Lovefield St. Pump Station- Replace old slide gates that are difficult to
WW PS LF-3 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 68,100
Replace Slide Gates operate with motor-actuated gates
Daley Field Pump Station-Replace Replace old slide gates that are difficult to
WW PS DF-2 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 68,100
Slide Gates operate with motor-actuated gates
RAS/WAS Bldg-Misc Electrical Replace old receptacles, lighting, transfomer,
WW TF RW-9 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 75,500
Improvements MCC, paneboard, starters
Aeration Tanks-Effluent Slide
WW TF AT-6 Old, difficult to access and difficult to operate WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 78,600
Gates
Control Bldg-Service Entrance
WW TF CB-13 Replace due to age WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 85,200
Replacement
Control Bldg-Lighting and Replace due to age and to improve energy
Receptacles Improvements efficiency
WW PS DF-6 Replacement of Motor Equipment is old WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 104,400
Lovefield St. Pump Station-Valve Replace old plug valves, gate valve, check valves,
WW PS LF-1 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 119,600
and Pipe Supports Replacement and air release valve; replace pipe supports
Install water main in Brewster Avenue to provide
Distribution System W
W DS Pipe-6 required capacity to the proposed Williston CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 145,000
Improvements - Brewster Avenue (P15)
School dorm.
Solids Handling Bldg-Sludge
WW TF SH-2 No scale now; would improve operations WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 183,600
Container Scale
Control Bldg-Pump room Replace BFP feed pumps and sump pumps, install
Improvements in-line grinders
Daley Field Pump Station-Replace
WW PS DF-1 Replace old pumps and sump pump WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 314,700
Pumps
Control Bldg-Electrical
WW TF CB-12 Replace due to age WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 629,400
Distribution Improvements
Purchase O&M software to improve ability to
WW O&M 1 Collection System O&M Software WW PURCHASE Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7
track maintenance activities
Hendrick St. Low Lift Pump
W
W PS HS-1 Station - Site Work & Building Paint exposed interior pipes CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 1,200
(P14)
Improvements
Page 9 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Lovefield St. Pump Station-Repair
WW PS LF-11 Repair to prevent further damage WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 6,000
deteriorated concrete
Aeration Tanks-Concrete
WW TF AT-4 Repair deteriorated concrete WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 8,100
Walkway/Stairway Repairs
RAS/WAS Bldg-HVAC Replace old Exhaust Fan/Louver/Damper and
WW TF RW-10 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 8,100
Improvements Controls
Lovefield St. Pump Station-HVAC
WW PS LF-8 Equipment is old WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 19,600
Improvements
WW TF CC-2 Replace 2 old sluice gates WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 20,900
Replace Sluice Gates
Plant Water Bldg-Instrumentation Replace plant water flow meter and related
WW TF PW-1 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 33,000
Upgrades instrumentation
Daley Field Pump Station-HVAC
WW PS DF-9 Equipment is old and/or in poor condition WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 38,800
Improvements
Solids Handling Bldg-HVAC Replace unit heaters, fans and controls due to
WW TF SH-6 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 40,300
Improvements age
Control Bldg-Chlorine Feed and Replace deteriorated door hardware, repaint
Storage Rooms doors, replace deteriorated containment area
WW TF CB-8 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 41,800
Architectural/Structural coating system, replace bent grating panel, clean
Improvements and paint steel walkway and stairs
Solids Handling Bldg-
Replace receptacles, lighting, transformer,
WW TF SH-5 Miscellaneous Electrical WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 42,600
panelboards, due to age
Improvements
Plant Water Bldg-HVAC Replacement of unit heaters and fans that are
WW TF PW-3 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 43,500
Improvements near end of service life
RAS/WAS Bldg-Replace Scum
Scum Pump has exceeded its expected service
WW TF RW-6 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 45,600
Pump life
Headworks Bldg HVAC Replace make up air unit and controls and
WW TF HW-7 WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 84,100
improvements Exhaust Fan 1 (old)
Inspections of storm drain lines older than 100
SW O&M 1 CCTV Inspections years and those of unknown age for condition SW STUDY Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4 1.33 5.3 $100,000
assessment.
Replace old heaters, ventilation fans and
WW TF CB-17 Control Bldg-HVAC Improvements WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 160,300
associated controls
Access Road/Driveway
WW TF S-2 Replace damaged pavement WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 740,100
Improvements
Special MH No. 9-Manhan River
WW TF S-5 Replace sensor due to age WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 $ 3,000
level Sensor Replacement
Mixed Sludge Well-Replace Level
WW TF MS-1 Replace due to age WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 $ 3,000
Sensor
Replace computer and improve internet
WW TF CB-3 Control Bldg-Office WW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 $ 4,900
connection
Promote the use of efficient plumbing and
WMA Alternative Demand
WMA- appliances through the distribution of W
W DM Management and Conservation PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 $ 7,000
12 educational materials included with bills or (P13)
Measures -Residential Demand
separate mailings.
WMA- Perform a rate structure evaluation to develop a W
11 rate structure that promotes conservation. (P13)
Measures - Water Rate Study
Perform a comprehensive water system audit at

WMA- least once every five years. This should include W
9 analysis of meter calibration, site visits to ensure (P13)
Measures - Water Audit
metering, review of leak detection, etc.
Hendrick Street Treatment Facility
Install new wooden carport (50' long, 25' deep) W
W TF HS-9 and Office - Site Work & Building CONSTRUCTION Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 $ 74,400
to provide shelter for vehicles. (P14)
Improvements
Page 10 of 11 12/12/2018
Total Weight 7.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
WMA- W
W DM Management and Conservation Perform a full review of the water billing system. PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 In House
10 (P13)
Measures - Billing System Review

WMA- Develop and maintain a water main break and W
W DM Management and Conservation PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 See O&M 7
8 leak database. (P13)
Measures - Leak Database
TOTAL 211 Projects $ 21,820,275
1
Legend:
Level 1: WW=wastewater project; W=water project; SW=stormwater project
Level 2: PS=pump station; CS=collection system; DS=distribution system; TF=treatment facility project; O&M=operation and maintenance; CO=compliance; ST=storage tank;
DM=demand management; WS=water supply; MS4=municipal separate storm sewer system; IMP=integrated management plan
Level 3: LF=Lovefield St. PS; DF=Daley Field PS; HE=Hendrick St. PS; LI=Liberty St. PS; MT=Mt. Tom PS; BA=Ballard St. PS; LO=Lownds Ave. PS; EN=East St. North PS; ES=East St. South PS; TR=Truehart Dr. PS; AS=Ashley Cir PS; Ol=Oliver St. PS; TO=Torrey St. PS;
BR=Brooks St. PS; PH=Phelps St. PS; CO=Cook Rd. PS; PM=Pomeroy Meadow Rd. PS
OF=Outfall Pipe; S=Site; HW=Headworks; PC=Primary Clarifiers; AT=Aeration Tanks; SC=Secondary Clarifiers; RW=RAS/WAS Building; CC=Chlorine Contact Chamber; PW=Plant Water Building; MS=Mixed Sludge Well; GT=Gravity Thickeners;
SH=Solids Handling Building; CB=Control Building; General Electrical
HS = Hendrick Street Facility; PN = Pines PS; NT =Nonotuck PS; WMA = Water Management Act; BR = Brooks Street PS; DL = Drury Lane ST; PV = Peaceful Valley ST; HSPS = Hendrick Street Pump Station; OP = Operations
2
Risk Projects: Negative Impact if project is not conducted and an asset fails. Opportunity Projects: Positive Impacts from the implementation of the project.
3
The Consequence Factor was calculated as follows:
If the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score=1, the Consequence Factor is the weighted average of the other factors.
If the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score=3, the Consequence Factor is the weighted average of all of the factors, including the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score.
If the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score=5, the Consequence Factor is 5.
4
The Risk/Opportunity Score is calculated as the Likelihood of Failure (or of Success) Factor multiplied by the Consequence Factor.
Page 11 of 11 12/12/2018
1 INTRODUCTION
This Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (IWRMP) for the City of Easthampton, MA
includes evaluations of, and recommendations for, the water, wastewater, and stormwater
infrastructure that is owned and operated by the City. This IWRMP Report is a culmination of 2.5 years
of data gathering, assessment, alternative analyses, and prioritization of projects for the water,
wastewater, and stormwater systems infrastructure. The IWRMP contains a comprehensive plan to
manage water supply treatment and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, and
stormwater management needs in an holistic manner, balancing the needs of each of these water
related utilities.
The Department of Public Works (DPW) identified the need for a city-wide integrated plan for the City
that would allow the DPW to proactively plan for, fund, and implement necessary capital improvements
and/or administrative practices related to the water resources infrastructure. The plan looks
concurrently at the water, wastewater and stormwater needs of the community, while also
contributing to a regional effort to mitigate water quality impacts within the watershed.
In the IWRMP analyses we considered appropriate solutions to demands placed upon the City’s
water resources infrastructure. The existing and projected future needs have been considered
and improvement alternatives developed to address deficiencies. Opportunities for cost savings
were also investigated and included in the final recommendations. The ultimate goal of the
IWRMP is to protect public health and environmental resources in a cost-effective manner. As
this is a planning project, the IWRMP itself will not mitigate any problems directly, but provides
recommendations for a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that prioritizes projects based
primarily on their public health and environmental benefits, the need to meet regulatory
requirements, and to address safety concerns. In addition, the IWRMP identifies needs within
the water, wastewater and stormwater systems over the next 20 years.
1.1 OVERALL PROJECT DRIVERS
Some of the key drivers for this project were the following:
• Retirement of key staff who held much of the existing institutional knowledge;
• Aging infrastructure and no comprehensive CIP for replacement;
• Need to understand and meet future demands;
• Compliance with existing permit requirements;

City of Easthampton 1-1 December 2018
• Compliance with projected future regulatory requirements; and
• Lack of compiled and updated water-related infrastructure system documentation.
1.2 WATER RESOURCE INFRASTRUCTURE
The drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure owned by Easthampton are
significant assets that serve to provide clean, potable water to the community and an environment
suitable for recreational activities, fisheries and wildlife habitat. Improvements in drinking water
quality and surface water quality will reduce the potential for public health problems and protect
environmental resources from contamination.
Wastewater: Easthampton has approximately 82 miles of gravity sanitary sewer mains and 6
miles of pump station force mains and low-pressure sewers. A significant portion of the
wastewater collection system has exceeded or is approaching its expected service life, as is
discussed in greater detail later in this report. Easthampton also owns and operates 18
wastewater pump stations, and a 3.8 million gallon per day (MGD) capacity wastewater treatment
facility. Improvements to the to the City’s wastewater collection system, pump stations, and
treatment facility will protect public health and environmental resources by reducing the probability
of sanitary sewer overflows and permit exceedances.
Drinking Water: Drinking water demand in Easthampton averages about 2 MGD. The system
delivers up to 3.5 MGD, and the demand is met with five pump stations, from one tubular wellfield
of over 100 wells plus four separately located wells, three storage tanks, 130 miles of water mains
and a water treatment facility. Over 16,000 people are served through 5,799 service connections.
All drinking water is drawn from the Barnes Aquifer, a high-quality groundwater source. Water
system improvements will improve drinking water reliability, quality, and quantity throughout the
community.
Stormwater: There are 2,874 catchbasins, 191 outfalls, 71 miles of drain lines, 80 miles of publicly
maintained roadways, 54 culverts, 3 hydrodynamic separators in Easthampton that the City must
maintain. About 50% of Easthampton’s sewer maintenance budget and staff time is spent on the
maintenance of stormwater infrastructure (catchbasins, stormdrains, pipes, etc.). More
investment in time and money are required to address stormwater infrastructure needs and
increases in regulatory requirements to identify and eliminate illicit discharges, and implement
additional stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPS) to improve stormwater runoff quality.

1.3 OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of this IWRMP are to:
• Engage the public in the planning process through information sharing and feedback;
• Compile and update data and other information on existing natural conditions and
infrastructure;
• Determine current and future demands on the water, wastewater and stormwater systems
based on growth and land use planning in local and regional documentation;
• Determine the needs for current and future water supply, treatment and distribution;
• Determine the needs for current and future wastewater collection and treatment;
• Develop a plan to manage current and future stormwater runoff to help improve water
quality and meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements;
• Perform alternatives analyses for identified needs; and
• Develop a prioritized CIP.
1.4 REPORT CONTENTS
This IWRMP Report includes overall descriptions of the water resources infrastructure, the analyses
that were completed, and the resultant recommendations. The technical memorandums that were
prepared throughout the course of the IWRMP analyses are included as Appendices and contain
detailed descriptions of the evaluations.
Section 2 – Public Participation, contains a description of the public participation process,

including meetings that were held and how information was communicated.
Section 3 - Existing conditions, provides a description of the existing natural water resources
and their water quality, as well as a review of the existing on-site wastewater treatment systems
(septic systems) in the City.
Section 4 – Wastewater Infrastructure, provides a description of the existing wastewater

infrastructure and a summary of the wastewater treatment facility, pump station, and collection
system investigations, evaluations and improvement recommendations.
Section 5 – Drinking Water Infrastructure, provides a description of the existing wastewater

infrastructure and a summary of the water treatment facility, wells facilities, storage tanks, and
distribution system evaluations and recommendations.

Section 6 – Stormwater, provides a description of the existing infrastructure, condition
assessment of detention basins, and recommendations, as well as the 2016 MS4 NPDES
permit requirements and the status of Easthampton’s readiness to meet these permit
requirements.
Section 7 – Capital Improvement Plan, contains prioritized water, wastewater and

stormwater recommendations for those improvements expected to be needed over the next
five years. An integrated, prioritized list of proposed projects is included, as well as lists of
recommended improvements broken out for each infrastructure system (water, wastewater
and stormwater).
Section 8 – Preliminary Rate Analysis - The overall costs and preliminary estimates of the
rate impacts of implementing the improvements described in the proposed 5-year CIP are also
described.

2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Important aspects of the integrated planning process include educating the public regarding the
need for infrastructure improvements and obtaining public support and buy-in of the plan by
soliciting public input and participation throughout the planning process. Public participation
during the development of the Easthampton IWRMP was achieved through a series of public
workshops. Three workshops and a final public hearing were held in the meeting room at City
Hall, 50 Payson Avenue. The workshop dates and topics of discussion are included in Table 2-
1. The list of participants and the presentations that were given at each workshop and the public
hearing are included in Appendix A. In addition, the public notice and a summary of the
discussions, questions and responses during the June 13, 2018 Public Hearing are included in
Appendix A.
Table 2-1
Public Participation
Public Participation Event Date Topics
Workshop #1 September 29, 2015 Project introduction

Easthampton’s water infrastructure
Workshop #2 March 29, 2016 Overview of IWRMP elements
Infrastructure mapping
Existing conditions
Needs assessments
Stormwater progress
Workshop #3 October 18, 2016 Overall project status
Alternatives analyses
Preliminary findings
Public Hearing June 13, 2018 What is and why perform an IWRMP
Overview of IWRMP process
Infrastructure mapping
Existing conditions
Needs assessments
Alternatives analyses
Prioritization process
Recommended 5-year prioritized Capital Plan
Estimated costs
Rate impacts

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes aspects of the City of Easthampton related to its water resources, including
existing planning documents and the natural and built environments, and identifies the elements
that impact and shape the way water is managed in Easthampton. This component of the IWRMP
provides a basic understanding of Easthampton’s environment, how it impacts water use,
treatment, and planning within the City, and provides the basis for some of the assumptions used
in this planning study.
3.2 EXISTING REPORTS
A number of recent reports have been completed by the City of Easthampton that include
components that identify and address the desire within the City for preserving water resources.
These include a Master Plan (2008), an Open Space and Recreation Plan (2013), and a
Community Preservation Act (CPA) Preservation Plan (2014). These documents were used as
sources of information for development of this section; components relevant to this IWRMP are
described below or referenced within the chapter.
3.2.1 Master Plan, 2008
Chapter 14 of the City of Easthampton Master Plan (2008) addressed land use in the City. The
chapter includes details on land use in Easthampton, and the trends in development from 1971
through 1999. The greatest increase in the developed land since 1952 was in residential lots
between ¼ and ½ acre in size. During this time many developments were constructed in what is
now the Aquifer Protection Overlay District. As outlined in the report 3,500 acres of the over 8,700
acres of land in Easthampton (44%) are residential development, accounting for approximately
80% of the total parcels in the City. Of the residential parcels, 77% have single family homes.
Another 2,500 acres of land (31.5%) were identified as either tax-exempt or subject to reduced
taxes (i.e. Chapter 61/61A/61B). In 2007, only 4.3% of parcels in the City, representing 10.2% of
the land area, was undeveloped and developable. The Master Plan documents citizens’ concerns
over the recent loss of open space and prime farmland, particularly in the Park Hill Road and East
Street Corridor areas.
The three goals outlined in the Master Plan Land Use Chapter that are relevant to water resources
in Easthampton are:

1. Promote development in the City center, where existing infrastructure exists and can
handle a higher density of development.
2. Adopt regulations and policies that promote sustainable development and protect
environmentally sensitive lands.
3. Protect valuable open space and agricultural lands on the edges of the City.
Twenty distinct strategies, most that are regulatory, are listed to achieve the goals and include
zoning changes, encouraging development in certain areas, and new ordinances. Of particular
relevance to water infrastructure planning are the strategies listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
Strategies Related to Water Infrastructure Planning
Strategy
Strategy Status
NO.
1 Adopt a Chapter 40 R smart growth district. Adopted
Protect the Barnes Aquifer through land acquisition and the adoption of
4 *See note
a North Aquifer Protection Overlay District ordinance.
9 Adopt a Stormwater Ordinance to meet the NPDES Phase II Standards. Adopted
Update the subdivision regulations to include Low Impact Development
10 Underway
(LID) standards for stormwater management.
19 Adopt an Upland Protection ordinance to protect wetlands. Not Done
*Some land targeted for acquisition; overlay district not adopted.
3.2.2 Open Space and Recreation Plan, 2013
The 2013 Easthampton Open Space and Recreation Plan updates the Open Space and
Recreation Plan that was prepared in 2004. The purpose of the plan “is to inventory, assess, and
plan for future open space and recreation resources”. The plan includes a detailed description of
the geology, topography, landscape and water resources in Easthampton. This document is a
good source of information on the City and its natural resources. Elements and details in the
Open Space and Protection Plan that are specifically relevant to water resources and
infrastructure in the City are referenced throughout this chapter.

3.2.3 CPA Preservation Plan (2014)
The Community Preservation Act (CPA) was established by the Massachusetts State Legislature
to encourage municipalities to invest in community preservation projects, which can include
affordable housing, open space protection, historic preservation, and recreational facilities within
the community. Easthampton adopted the CPA in 2001, which allocated 3% of each property tax
bill (for land assessed over $100,000) for CPA projects.
The CPA Preservation Plan details the resources and needs in Easthampton for each of the four
categories and identifies the project ranking criteria that are used in identifying projects for CPA
funding. One of the general criteria for CPA project funding is that the project saves resources
that would otherwise be threatened. An additional criterium for qualifying Open Space Projects
is protection and enhancement of the watershed and water resources in Easthampton.
3.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The City of Easthampton is in the Connecticut River Valley and bordered by Northampton to the
north, Westhampton and Southampton to the west, Holyoke to the east, and Hadley to the
northeast (see figures in Appendix B). The Mount Tom Range forms a natural divide between
Easthampton and the City of Holyoke, while the Connecticut River forms a barrier between
Easthampton and Hadley to the northeast. Most of the approximately 13 square miles (8,704
acres) in Easthampton is level to rolling countryside (82%) with steep slopes along the Mount
Tom range to the east and along the shorelines of Lower Mill Pond, the Manhan River, and
Hannum, Bassett, Wilton and Brickyard Brooks1. The rolling terrain is generally found in the
northern end of the City near the border with Northampton.
3.3.1 Geology
Stratified glacial deposits of gravel, fine sands, silts and clay form the Barnes Aquifer system,
Easthampton’s drinking water source. The majority of the City of Easthampton is over this aquifer,
which extends into Southampton, Northampton, Westfield and Holyoke. According to the 2003
Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) Report prepared for Easthampton by
MassDEP, the Barnes Aquifer is a glacially formed bedrock valley filled with sand and gravel that
was deposited during the glacial retreat. A thick layer of clay settled in Lake Hitchcock, a glacial
lake that subsequently covered much of the Connecticut River Valley; this hydrogeologic clay
1
Easthampton Open Space and Recreation Plan 2013-2020. December 2013. Page 5.

layer barrier covers much of the Barnes Aquifer under Easthampton, including the City center,
but the clay thins out near the boundaries and does not exist in the southern end of the City. The
aquifer is shallow, and thus highly vulnerable to contamination, especially where the protective
clay layer is nonexistent.
The surficial geology of Easthampton is shown in Appendix C. The majority of the surface geology
in the City consists of well-drained materials, such as sand and gravels, through which
contaminants could easily pass. Areas above the aquifer without an underlying protective clay
layer are vulnerable to pollution.
3.3.2 Water Resources
Easthampton is part of the Manhan River sub-watershed in the Connecticut River Watershed.
Within Easthampton the Manhan River is the main tributary stream that flows west to northeast
and feeds into the Connecticut River in the northeast corner of the City via the Oxbow. Hannum
and Basset Brooks flow into the Manhan River from the north. From the south, White Brook,
Broad Brook, Wilton Brook and Brickyard Brooks all feed the Manhan River through a series of
ponds that were created by damming Broad Brook in the early nineteenth century. White Brook,
Broad Brook, and Wilton Brook (via Rubber Thread Pond) flow into Nashawannuck Pond
(formerly Upper Mill Pond), which joins Brickyard Brook at Lower Mill Pond. Broad Brook
continues from Lower Mill Pond to the Manhan River (shown in Appendix B).
Floodplain areas bordering the Manhan River and the Oxbow surface water resource areas
experience flooding primarily during spring melts and high rain events. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has flood zone maps that define areas subject to different
probabilities of flooding. Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding are said to be in the 100-
year flood zone, while areas with a 0.2% annual chance of flooding are in the 500-year flood zone.
The areas likely to be flooded during 100 and 500-year events in Easthampton are shown in
Appendix B. The 100-year flood zone encompasses the edges of Nashawannuck and Lower Mill
Ponds, and the wetlands and low-lying areas adjacent to Broad Brook, the Manhan River and the
Connecticut River Oxbow. Most of the flooding from a 100-year event would occur north of the
Manhan River and between the Manhan River and the Oxbow. Flooding does not increase
significantly overall in a 500-year flood event, but does increase in the northeast corner of the City
near Clapp Street, along the Manhan River north of Pleasant Street, and in various other pockets
adjacent to the 100-year flood areas.

Wetlands in the City are generally adjacent to streams and ponds, as well as in the floodplains of
the Manhan River. Isolated pockets of wetlands are located throughout the City, including near
the Oxbow, Bassett Brook, and Florence Road. The Easthampton Open Space and Recreation
Plan (2013) lists important environmental functions that wetlands provide (Page 28). Some of
these are reiterated here:
• They act as natural water storage areas during periods of heavy rain, reducing damage
from flooding.
• Wetlands protect water quality by trapping and filtering sediments from upland runoff.
• Wetlands trap nutrients from run-off.
• Wetlands are generally linked to the ground water system. Surface water from the
wetlands may percolate through and add to ground water supply.
• Wetlands serve as discharge/ recharge areas for aquifers.
The most critically important water resource is Easthampton is the Barnes Aquifer, the primary
drinking water source for the City of Easthampton (shown in Appendix D). The aquifer also
provides drinking water for Southampton, Westfield, Holyoke. Because the City of Easthampton
sits atop the Barnes Aquifer, the majority of the land area in the City is classified as Zone II by
MassDEP due to the importance and recharge characteristics of the aquifer (shown in Appendix
D). The aquifer was designated by EPA as a sole source for Easthampton’s drinking water in
1995, which allows the EPA to “review, suggest modifications to, or withhold funding for, any
federally financially assisted projects proposed for construction within the Broad Brook Basin of
2
the Barnes Aquifer that may pose an adverse risk of ground water contamination” .
The City actively protects this resource through participation in the Barnes Aquifer Protection
Advisory Committee (BAPAC) and through acquisition of land parcels within the Zone II, but
concern for the integrity of the water supply remains. One of the five major goals of the Open
Space and Recreation Plan (2013) is the protection of groundwater and surface water resources.
The development and adoption of a Wellhead Protection Plan was identified as a primary need
in the Easthampton Master Plan (2008). A Wellhead Protection Plan would identify strategies to
3
protect the drinking water supply and provide a timeline for protection strategies. The Maloney
2
EPA sole source designation, April 28, 1995. Accessed online: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/drinkwater/solebroa.html June 1,
2015.
3
Easthampton Open Space and Recreation Plan 2013-2020. December 2013. Page 30.

well is not in compliance with the MA Wellhead Protection Regulations (310 CMR 22.21(2))
4
because the Zone II of the well is not included in the City’s Aquifer Protection District.
The City has reported that there has not been a time when the drinking water supply was limited
due to insufficient water available from the Barnes Aquifer. No historical record of the variation in
aquifer groundwater levels has been located to supplement the City’s anecdotal report. For the
purposes of this planning study, it is assumed that the capacity of the aquifer is sufficient to meet
Easthampton’s water supply needs. We note that the presence of sufficient capacity does not
account for potential regulatory or operational limits that may impact the actual water availability
to the City.
3.3.3 Water Quality
3.3.3.1 Groundwater
The Barnes Aquifer system provides all the drinking water for the City of Easthampton. In March
2015, Easthampton’s Water Department won the gold medal for best-tasting drinking water in the
United States in the Great American Water Taste Test conducted at the National Rural Water
Association Rally (see Appendix E). Two of Easthampton’s five sources, the Nonotuck Park and
Brook Street Wells, have excellent water quality and are not treated before they are pumped into
the drinking water distribution system. Water from the Maloney Well has high manganese and is
used as a back-up water source only. The Hendrick Street wellfield and the Pines well contain
the volatile organic compound trichloroethylene (TCE) in amounts that exceed the 5 parts per
billion (ppb) maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by the EPA, highlighting the vulnerability of
the sources. A treatment system to remove TCE was installed in 1995 and treats water from the
Hendricks Street Wellfield and the Pines Well.
In the BAPAC Report on Fiscal Year 2012 Activities prepared by the PVPC, the committee
identified abandoned monitoring wells in the Zone II, which are estimated to number in the
hundreds, as one of the greatest threats to the aquifer. Each of these wells represents a
penetration through the protective clay layer over the aquifer. These wells are installed at
commercial, industrial, and Chapter 21E sites where releases of hazardous material have
4
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (2012. Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee Report on Fiscal Year 2012 Activities
Accessed online: http://bapac.pvpc.org/docs/annual-reports/BAPAC%20FY12%20Annual%20Report%2012-3-12.pdf December
29, 2015.

occurred. The concern is that the wells were not all properly decommissioned and are either not
known by the current property owner or have been forgotten and are directly connected to the
5
aquifer and, therefore, are potential routes of contamination.
3.3.3.2 Surface water
To meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), states must assess and categorize
surface water bodies for attainment of designated uses (habitat for fish, fish and shellfish
consumption, swimming, etc.). States must also identify any water bodies that are not expected
to meet surface water quality standards after implementation of technology-based controls.
These sources are prioritized for establishing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for use in permit
setting. Massachusetts meets the CWA reporting requirements through the creation of an
Integrated Waters List in which waters are categorized. The categories and the number of water
bodies within Easthampton in each category are shown in Table 3-2. The surface water bodies
within Easthampton that were included in the most recent Integrated Waters List are listed in
Table 3-3.
5
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (2012. Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee Report on Fiscal Year 2012 Activities
Accessed online: http://bapac.pvpc.org/docs/annual-reports/BAPAC%20FY12%20Annual%20Report%2012-3-12.pdf December 29,
2015.

Table 3-2
Designated Use Categories Assigned for Easthampton Water Bodies
Category Description # Water Bodies

1 Unimpaired 0*
2 Attaining some uses; others not assessed 1
3 No uses assessed 2
4a TMDL is completed 0
4b Impairment controlled by alternative pollution control requirements 0
4c Impairment not caused by pollutant (i.e. by non-native aquatic plants) 1
5 Require a TMDL 5
*None in state of MA due to Department of Public Health advisory on consumption of fish.
Table 3-3
2014 Integrated Waters List for Easthampton
Segment Area/ Length

Waterbody Description Category Reason
ID within City
Meets needs of
Headwaters, Holyoke to
fish, other
Broad Brook MA34-18 inlet Nashawannuck Pond, 2.9 miles 2
aquatic life and
Easthampton
wildlife
Northampton/ 1.44 acres
Danks Pond MA34019 3
Easthampton (2.796 total)
Headwaters, Easthampton Not assessed
White Brook MA34-14 to inlet Nashawannuck 1.8 miles 3
Pond, Easthampton
Lower Mill Non-native
MA34048 29.64 acres 4c
Pond aquatic plants
Confluence with Deerfield
River, 0.3 miles E. coli
Connecticut
MA34-04 Greenfield/Montague/Deer (of 34.4 mile 5
River PCBs in fish
field to Holyoke Dam, segment)
Holyoke/ South Hadley tissue
Outlet Tighe Carmody
6.4 miles
Reservoir, Southampton to
Manhan River MA34-11 (of 19.2 total 5 E. coli
confluent with Connecticut
miles)
River, Easthampton
Nutrient/
eutrophication
biological
Along northeast edge of
indicators
Nashawannuck Nonotuck Park. Dammed
MA34057 30.07 acres 5 Total
Pond at northern end under
Cottage Street. Phosphorus
Non-native
aquatic plants

Segment Area/ Length
Waterbody Description Category Reason
ID within City
No TMDL
Required
The waterbody west of
Route 91 (bounded on the Turbidity
northeast by Route 91, the
southeast by the Manhan
27.13 acres
River, and the west by Old Non-native
Oxbow MA34066 (of 148.1 total 5
Springfield Road), aquatic plants
acres)
Northampton/Easthampton No TMDL
(excluding the delineated Required
segment; Danks Pond
MA34019)
Aquatic plants
(macrophytes)
Non-native
Headwaters, Easthampton aquatic plants
to outlet RubberThread No TMDL
Wilton Brook MA34-15 1.132 miles 5
Pond (formerly segment Required
MA34105) , Easthampton Non-native
aquatic plants
No TMDL
Required
3.3.3.3 Connecticut River Water Quality
The surface water quality of the Connecticut River at the Oxbow Department of Conservation and
Recreation (DCR) public state boat ramp has been monitored on a weekly basis during the
summer months (end of May through early October) by the Connecticut River Watershed Council
each year since 2012. Samples are analyzed for E. coli bacteria, which is used as an indicator
of pathogens present. Between 2012 and 2014 the majority of samples (73%) had E. coli levels
low enough to be considered safe for swimming and boating. Of the rest, 16% had bacterial levels
safe for boating, but too high for swimming, and the remaining 11% had bacterial levels that
indicated the water was not clean enough for recreational use (see Figure 3-1).

Figure 3-1
Connecticut River Oxbow E. coli Results, May through September 2012-2014
High bacterial levels are generally related to wet-weather events. Total precipitation and weekly
E. coli counts at the Oxbow DCR boat ramp during summer months from 2012 through 2014 are
shown in Figure 3-2. Precipitation data is presented as total inches of rain measured at either the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) rain gauge in Westhampton or the Chicopee Falls
Westover Airforce Base, depending on availability of data, for the week prior to sampling. While
the general trend is for the quality of the water to decrease with higher total precipitation, as seen
by higher E. coli levels, total weekly or daily precipitation is not always a predictor of water quality.
Poor water quality on days with low rainfall may be due to high intensity rainfall that resulted in a
significant amount of runoff. Using the same rational, weeks with good water quality and high
total precipitation may have experienced lower intensity rainfall, resulting in less runoff. Note that
higher intensity storms, which typically have a greater impact on water quality, seem to be
occurring at greater frequency.

Figure 3-2
Precipitation and E. coli in Oxbow, May through September 2012-2014
3.3.3.4 Manhan River Water Quality
The Manhan River is impaired by E. coli. In 2003, 2008 and again in 2014, MassDEP sponsored
water quality testing of the Manhan River, the main water body in Easthampton that drains into
the Connecticut River. In 2003 and 2008, samples were collected once each month from late
April through early October and analyzed for ammonia, total nitrogen (in 2008), total phosphorus,
E. coli, turbidity, suspended solids and true color (in 2008). In 2003 samples were collected from
Loudville Road, and from where the Manhan River crosses Fort Hill Road and Pomeroy Meadow
Road. A few other parameters, including dissolved oxygen and pH, were also collected, but are
6
not included in this report . Samples were also collected from Fort Hill and Pomeroy Meadow
Road locations in 2008. Sampling results and total daily rainfall for the days sampled are shown
in Appendix F. Water quality testing showed acceptable concentrations of all pollutants except
E. coli on some sample days. In 2008, the main stem of the Manhan River, as represented by
the Fort Hill Road location, had higher background E. coli measurements and a stronger response
to precipitation than the North Branch of the River that was sampled at the Pomeroy Meadow
Road location (see Figure 3-3). Both locations show significantly elevated E. coli and suspended
6
MassDEP Water Quality Assessment Report for the Connecticut River Watershed
at:http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/watersheds/water-quality-assessments.html.

solids results on September 9, 2008; significant precipitation was measured during the 5-days
leading up to the sampling. A table of field observations made at each location during sampling
visits in 2008 is included in Appendix F. A graph of total precipitation verses E. coli counts is
shown in Figure 3-3. Data are from summer sampling events at three locations in the Manhan
River in 2003 and 2008. Precipitation is presented as total inches of rain at the Barnes Air
National Guard Base in Westfield for the week prior to sampling. While a clear relationship
between rainfall and bacterial measurements is not seen with this amount of data, there appears
to be higher levels of E. coli in the reaches of the Mahnah River near the western part of the City.
at Loudville
at Fort Hill
Road
at Loudville
Figure 3-3
Precipitation and E. coli, Manhan River
In 2014 the PVPC was awarded a grant through the MassDEP 604(b) Program to conduct
pollution source water quality testing for the Manhan River. Sites along the Manhan River and its
tributaries were sampled in the summer of 2016 to track E. coli impairment along the River. The
project and a follow up study conducted in summer 2017 to do source tracking are described on
7
the PVPC website. The detailed protocol for the testing and theresults are included in Appendix
G. Samples were collected from each of 15 locations along the Manhan River, Potash Brook,
Hannum Brook, and Broad Brook on three (3) wet days and (3) dry days. Based on these results
the PVPC identified Moose Brook in Southampton, Whittemore Conservation Area in
Southampton, No. Branch of the Manhan River in Southamtpon, Potash Brook, and Fort Hill Road
7
http://www.pvpc.org/projects/manhan-river-bacterial-source-tracking-project

in Easthampton as areas with consistently high E. coli levels in both dry and wet weather that did
not appear to be associated with human sources. Best management practices for agriculture
were identified in the 2017 investigation as ways to mitigat sources of E coli into the Manhan
River. Land owners in the project area voluntarily selected BMPs to implement to reduce bacterial
run-off into the watershed.
3.3.3.5 Nashawannuck Pond
Nashawannuck Pond is one of the four ponds created to supply industry power needs in the
1800s. The pond was added to the Massachusetts list of waterbodies requiring a TMDL (see
Table 3-3) in 1998 based on observations made during a survey of lakes in Western
Massachusetts. The pond had beach erosion, moderate turbidity, appeared gray / brown, and
had bright green scum and floating and submergent aquatic plants along shore per the 1998
8
Water Quality Assessment Report. Problems with water quality in the pond were documented in
9
a 1990 diagnostic / feasibility study. Measures taken since 1990 to improve water quality in the
pond include:
• installation of a Gabion weir on the White Brook tributary outlet,

• construction of a siltation basin on the Broad Brook tributary,
• installation of three hydrodynamic particle separators within drainage systems on adjacent
roads,
• erosion and sediment control projects at four locations along the pond,
• homeowner education on the importance of riparian buffers and erosion control, and
• dredging of accumulated sediments.
Sediment deposits continue to be a problem, and due to a lack of funding for maintenance the
Gabion weir and siltation basins are full of sediment and no longer performing as designed.
Permitting is ongoing to allow for maintenance of the gabion weir and siltation basin. The
locations of the weir and siltation basin are shown in Figure 3-4.
8
1998 Water Quality Assessment Report. Accessed online: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/watersheds/water-
quality-assessments.html#3 November 30, 2015.
9
A Diagnostic/ Feasibility Study for the Management of Nashawannuck Pond Easthampton, MA. Accessed online:
http://www.nashawannuckpond.org/uploads/1/0/5/8/10581843/ocn319062254.pdf, January 18, 2016. Baystate Environmental
Consultants

The Nashawannuck Pond Steering Committee received funding from the Florence Savings Bank
to begin non-native invasive aquatic vegetation removal from the Pond. The Committee plans to
continue the program on non-native aquatic management on an on-going basis.
Figure 3-4
White Brook Gabion Weir and Broad Brook Sedimentation Basin
3.3.4 Climate
Easthampton is in a temperate zone with the warmest weather in July and the coldest weather in
January of each year. The historical monthly average high temperatures are 33°F in January and
10
83°F in July; average monthly low temperatures are 16°F in January and 61°F July. Due to the
extremes in temperature as well as humidity, water pumping and treatment systems need
environmental controls to maintain moderate, dry conditions. Where these control systems fail to
moderate the environment, pumping, process and control equipment may become susceptible to
environmental impacts such as condensation, over-heating or freezing. Proper monitoring and
swift replacement of failed environmental control systems are important to ensure proper
operation of this equipment.
10
Accessed online: http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=19434&zip_code=01027&metric=false, May 15, 2015.

Water scarcity is not currently an issue in Easthampton and the region as a whole, but drought
condition are occurring on an increased basis. Average precipitation consists of rainfall at 43.2
inches per year with an additional snowfall of 36.1 inches; both are higher in Easthampton than
11
the national average. The recent high levels of precipitation and the high water table present
challenges for water management in the forms of infiltration and inflow into the wastewater
collection systems and necessitate the establishment of a stormwater program to minimize
pollution from stormwater runoff into surface waters as laid out in the MS4 Stormwater Permit.
For water resource planning and design, precipitation events are characterized by frequency and
duration. Frequency is the probability that a storm event of a particular intensity (duration and
depth of rain) will occur in a typical year. Rainfall frequency is based on a regional analysis of
historical rainfall events and represents average conditions. For instance, a 2-year storm event
will occur, on average, once every 2 years. In other words, there is a 50% chance that a 2-year
storm event will occur in a given year. This statistical probability does not, however, imply that it
is not possible to have more than one 2-year event in a given year.
In 2011 the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Northeast Regional Climate
Center (NRCC) collaboratively updated the rainfall statistics and accumulation data for use in
water resources planning and design incorporating an additional 50 years of precipitation records.
The updated approximate rainfall accumulations based on storm frequency for a 24-hour storm
within Hampshire County, MA are listed in Table 3-4 along with the original data from 1961.
Table 3-4
24-hour Rainfall Accumulation (NRCS)
Year of Statistical Analysis

Frequency
1961 2011
2-year 3.0 3.1
5-year 3.8 3.8
10-year 4.5 4.5
25-year 5.0 5.6
50-year 6.0 6.5
100-year 6.5 7.7
It is apparent that since 1961, historical rainfall trends have changed. While the amount of rainfall
from a 2-, 5- and 10-year event has not significantly changed, the rainfall from less frequent events
11
Sperlings Best Places. Accessed online: www.bestplaces.net/climate/zip-code/massachusetts/easthampton/01027, May 15, 2015.

(25-, 50- and 100-year) has increased appreciably. In other words, historically less frequent
events that produce higher rainfall amounts are occurring more frequently. The updated 2011
storm data is used in this planning document.
In the past several years, observations indicate that climatic precipitation patterns have been
shifting toward more frequent and intense rainfall. The general potential impacts of climate
variation to water management will be considered in the analyses of the water, wastewater, and
stormwater systems of Easthampton as part of this overall IWRMP.
3.4 BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND WASTEWATER NEEDS ANALYSIS
Easthampton has two main corridors for transportation: Route 10 and Route 141. Route 10 enters
Easthampton from the north and runs southwest to Easthampton Center and continues to
Southampton. Route 141 runs southeast from the City Center and over Mt. Tom, connecting
Easthampton with Interstate 91 in Holyoke. The Downtown area, which is a mixture of residential
and commercial development, is located at the intersection of Routes 10 and 141 and
encompasses the north end of Main Street, Union Street, and Cottage Street. Old mills are
located at the north end of Nashawannuck Pond (Cottage Street), and along Lower Mill Pond
(Pleasant Street) to the Ferry Street Mill complex. With the exceptions of the western face of Mt.
Tom, open farmland in the northwest and the open land in the center of the City in the Nonotuck
Park area, much of the city is populated with housing developments.
The majority of buildings are provided with City water through the water distribution system
(99.6%) and have access to the City wastewater collection system (97.8%). There are 124
properties not served by the wastewater collection system, 73 of which do not have access,
including portions of Torrey Street, Park Hill Road, Old Stagecoach Road, Mineral Street, Clapp
Street and River Street. A full list of the addresses that do not have access to the city sewer
system is provided in Appendix H. We understand that the City has no plans to expand the
wastewater collection system to serve the unsewered areas at this time. No properties with septic
systems were identified as needing to connect to the wastewater collection system. None had
recurring septic system failures nor the presence of poor soil conditions. Unconnected properties
within the sewered area will be required to connect if they have septic problems in the future or,
in some cases, when the property is sold. Only 22 houses do not have access to City water.
These properties are located on Corner Lane (1), Drury Lane (3), Fort Hill Road (6), Mineral Street
(9), and Old Stagecoach Road (3). There are no plans to extend the water distribution system to
those homes.

A natural gas pipeline runs north-south through the City from the Northampton line east of Park
Hill Road to the Southampton line south of Pomeroy Street, and a Western Mass Electric
transmission easement runs from the same location south of Pomeroy Street northeast to Route
5.
3.4.1 Hazardous Waste Sites
The State of Massachusetts has a waste site cleanup program that was established in the State
Superfund law, Chapter 21E of the Massachusetts General Laws. The waste site cleanup
program has reporting requirements for oil or other hazardous material spills and tracks the
cleanup on the sites where spills occurred. These sites are called “21E” sites. All of the spills
that have occurred in Easthampton and were reported are listed on the MassDEP website.
Of the sites in Easthampton on the MassDEP Chapter 21E master list, six are classified as either
an active site or a closed site that may not have met optimal site conditions. These sites are
shown on the map in Appendix D and are listed in Table 3-5. While these locations represent
some hazardous material exposure to the environment, they do not necessarily signify a definite
contamination risk to water resources in the City.
Table 3-5
Sites Listed on MassDEP Waste Cleanup Program
Site Status Details
Easthampton Landfill Restricted land use Final site inspection complete.

Loudville Road Monitoring required
During a gas tank removal, unsuitable soil was
Inland Citgo Station
In remediation found. 514 tons of soil was removed.
101-109 Pleasant St.
Active ground water monitoring in effect.
Soil in area was impacted by a manufactured gas
Easthampton Area Not feasible to plant. Soil that could be removed was, but existing
Work Center further remediate buildings are in the way of some impacted soil. On-
19 Liberty St. Monitoring required going monitoring including groundwater monitoring
wells are in place.
Remediation action of oxygen sparging sustains
Citgo Station microbial population that consumes hydrocarbons.
In remediation
105 Pleasant St. Ongoing monitoring of gasoline contaminated soil
and groundwater.

Site Status Details
Former gas station, 275 gallon tank was removed

and higher than acceptable levels of total organic
O’Connell Oil Services
vapors were detected in the soil.
Station In remediation
92.7 tons of soil was removed.
19 Parsons St.
Ongoing water monitoring; surrounding homeowners
are notified of test results.
Historical release of gasoline as an active gas filling
Not feasible to station. Petroleum hydrocarbons persist in
Main St. Service
further remediate groundwater at concentrations slightly above
317 Main St.
Monitoring required standards (no indication of any use of groundwater
within 500 feet of site).
3.4.2 Population and Anticipated Growth
Since 1940 the number of Easthampton residents has increased, with large increases in
population in the 1950s and the 1970s when residential neighborhoods were developed, including
in the Plains area in the southern part of the City. The population increase has been modest
since the 1980s, with some years of no increase or population loss, but the overall trend has been
upwards. In 2015, the UMass Donahue Institute (UMDI) and the PVPC published population
estimates for the City of Easthampton through 2035 and 2040, respectively. These projections
and the recorded population since 1930 are shown in Figure 3-5.

Figure 3-5
Easthampton population from 1930 through 2040
The UMDI population projection is based on state-wide trends, whereas the PVPC projections
take into account regional trends and activities. The PVPC projects an overall increase in
Easthampton’s population in 20 years compared to the UMDI projection of a decrease in
Easthampton’s population in 2035 compared to 2014. The UMDI population projection is for a
slight increase through 2025 (from 16,066 to 16,574 persons) followed by a population decrease
in 2035 back to 16,269 persons. The PVPC projection has the population steadily increasing to
17,540 persons in 2035. The difference between the two projections is 720 individuals, or 4.5%
of the actual 2014 population (16,066). The developable land in Easthampton has been
assessed and that evaluation indicates there is a sufficient potential growth area for the PVPC
projection to be supported. For the purposes of ensuring adequate infrastructure capacity in the
future, the estimated population in 20 years (2035) was assumed in this study to be the higher of
the two projections, which is the PVPC projection of 17,540 persons, a 9.4% increase over the
2014 population.
The Massachusetts EOEA estimates a full build-out population for Easthampton of 27,847
persons, a 74% increase over the 2014 population, based on its 1999 buildout analysis.
According to the City Planning Department, Easthampton is close to full build-out now, and the
level of build-out estimated in the EOEA analysis is not expected within the 20-year planning
horizon of this IWRMP. Parcels available for development are generally outside of the City Center
and are shown in Appendix I.

3.4.3 Open Land
An inventory of Open land is provided in the Easthampton Open Space and Recreation Plan
(2013). The City owned 902 acres of land used for public recreation and/or conservation at the
time the Plan was published. Of the privately held land, approximately 640 acres of farmland is
protected through the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Agricultural
Preservation Restriction (APR) Program. Another 509 acres in the City were privately owned and
enrolled in Chapter 61A (agricultural) and 4.39 acres in Chapter 61 B (recreation) programs in
which the landowner pays reduced taxes in exchange for a lien on the property that allows the
City first refusal when the owner sells. A map of the open land in Easthampton is shown in
Appendix J.
The City Planning Department has identified developable parcels of land throughout the City
(Appendix I). The City Planning Department has targeted a number of parcels, shown in Appendix
J, for protection and economic development. The economic development parcels include an
abandoned mill at 1 Ferry Street and 3 parcels on Church Street. The Planning Department would
like to see a large swath of open farmland in the Park Hill area off Florence Road have a
development restriction or become a cluster development if developed. A parcel south of
Pomeroy Street on the Southampton town line has been targeted for protection of the aquifer.
3.4.4 Zoning and Redevelopment
Easthampton’s 2015 zoning map is included in Appendix K. Easthampton is primarily zoned as

residential, with the majority of land area zoned Rural Residential. Three small Highway Business
Districts cover the edges of town: a narrow strip along Route 10, between the Northampton line
and a small residential district north of the City center; East Street to the east of the Route-91
overpass; and a small section on the edge of Southampton on South Main Street. There is also
a downtown business district and industrial districts on O’Neill Street and north of Ferry Street,
with access from Gosselin Drive (WWTP), Arthur Street, and Fort Hill Road. A long, mixed use/
industrial district encompasses the Cottage Street and Pleasant Street Mills bordering Lower Mill
Pond.
To encourage infilling development and re-use of underutilized properties with access to the
existing sewer and water systems, the City has added a Smart Growth 40R overlay (Appendix
H). The 40R overlay includes most of the downtown business district, much of the neighborhood
business district along Pleasant Street, most of the mixed use/ industrial district along Pleasant

Street and the mill complex at the west end of Ferry Street, the urban residential district, and parts
of the suburban residential districts to the northeast of Nashawannuck Pond.
The City has also adopted an Aquifer Protection Overlay District over the southern portion of the
City that encompasses approximately 25% of the total land area in the City (Appendix H). The
current ordinances in the southern part of the City have not been extended to areas of the City
over the northern part of the aquifer because doing so would result in pre-existing non-conforming
uses for many properties, which has resulted in limited support. Easthampton had proposed
adding a protective ordinance for the northern part of the aquifer that would be based on the
thickness of the protective clay layer above the aquifer; however, MassDEP has not supported
that proposal.

4 WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Easthampton owns, operates and maintains the following wastewater infrastructure:
1. A wastewater treatment facility (WWTF)
2. 18 municipal wastewater pump stations
3. A wastewater collection system
As noted previously in this report, one objective of this evaluation was to identify the improvements
expected to be needed over the next 20 years to the City’s wastewater infrastructure. This report
section summarizes the drivers for wastewater improvements, the investigations performed as
part of this project to identify where improvements are needed, and the recommendations for
wastewater improvements or additional evaluation.
More detailed descriptions of the wastewater evaluations performed are presented in the technical
memoranda described below and are included in Appendices to this report.
• Wastewater Treatment Facility Evaluation Technical Memorandum, prepared by Tighe &

Bond, dated May 2018, included in Appendix L.
• Wastewater Pump Stations Evaluation Technical Memorandum, prepared by Tighe &

Bond, dated May 2018, included in Appendix M.
• Wastewater Collection System Evaluation Technical Memorandum, prepared by Tighe &

Bond, dated April 2018, included in Appendix N.
4.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
4.2.1 Project Drivers
The main drivers for improvements at the WWTF include:
• Aging equipment/facilities
• Compliance with current and projected future NPDES permit requirements
• Energy efficiency
• The high cost of solids handling and disposal

4.2.1.1 Aging Equipment/Facilities
A primary WWTF was constructed in the late 1940s at the site of the current treatment facility.
The treatment facility was upgraded in 1973 to provide secondary wastewater treatment with
subsequent improvements to its solids handling facilities in 1987 and its headworks, plant water
system, gravity thickeners, secondary clarifiers, and dechlorination system in the 1990s. Some
of the treatment facility structures still in use were built as part of the primary treatment facility
construction in the 1940s (over 70 years old), and many other treatment facility structures are
over 40 years old. In addition, much of the treatment facility equipment was installed as part of
the secondary treatment upgrade in the 1970s (over 40 years old); most of these equipment
components are beyond their expected service lives. Generally, the older equipment require
greater maintenance and, in some cases, replacement parts are now difficult to obtain. We
anticipate that, over the next 20 years, most of the older equipment will require replacement. A
condition assessment was performed at the WWTF as part of this evaluation that provides the
City with a prioritized list of recommended improvements.
4.2.1.2 NPDES Permit Compliance
Although the City’s WWTF is meeting its current NPDES permit limits, there is the potential for
more stringent permit limits in the future, which may require changes in operation and/or capital
improvements. In particular, the City’s permit identifies nitrogen within the Connecticut River as
a concern because of its impact on Long Island Sound (the Connecticut River discharges to the
Long Island Sound). The City’s permit already includes reporting requirements for nitrogen, which
is often a precursor to the issuance of a permit limit for that constituent. In addition, the City is
currently required to maintain its mass discharge of total nitrogen to 304.6 lbs/day so that the
maximum annual load measured in the prior permit cycle is not exceeded.
Other future permit concerns include metals, whose toxicity is dependent on the estimated
amount of river dilution during low flow periods, which can vary from permit cycle to permit cycle.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has indicated that river
low flows have been generally trending downward.
Recommended improvements at the WWTF have been developed considering future permit
limits.

4.2.1.3 Energy Efficiency
Due to the age and condition of much of the existing equipment at the WWTF, existing motors
and drives are not as energy efficient as the newer equipment available today. Energy efficiency
upgrades provide an opportunity to reduce operating costs at the WWTF. Aeration is the largest
consumer of energy at the WWTF, followed by building systems and pumping. Improvements
targeting these areas can reduce the overall energy use at the treatment facility. This evaluation
includes an energy audit to identify potential improvements to reduce energy costs.
4.2.1.4 Solids Handling and Disposal
One of the largest operating costs at the WWTF (34% of the total budget) is the cost to haul and
dispose of its solids. Currently, the City has a contract with Synagro to haul its dewatered solids
to Synagro’s Waterbury, CT facility for incineration. As part of this evaluation, solids disposal
alternatives were considered to reduce costs.
4.2.2 WWTF Overview
4.2.2.1 History
The Easthampton WWTF is located

adjacent to the Manhan River and at
the end of Gosselin Drive, as shown
in Figure 4-1. A wastewater
treatment facility was first built in the
1930s, at the site of the current
treatment facility, and consisted of a
primary settling tank, sludge drying
beds, and an outfall sewer to the
Manhan River. In 1949, the then Easthampton WWTF Site
existing treatment facility was replaced with a more modern treatment facility that was constructed
at the same site and included a control building, settling tanks, sludge digestion tanks, sludge
drying beds, and an outfall sewer to the Connecticut River. In 1973, the facility was upgraded to
provide secondary treatment with the addition of a grit building, aeration tanks, secondary settling
tanks, chlorine contact tanks, vacuum filters for sludge dewatering, and modifications to the

control building. In addition, a new secondary outfall to the Manhan River was constructed
(replacing the older Manhan River outfall). The secondary WWTF was designed to treat a
combination of domestic and industrial wastewater from the City of Easthampton with an average
daily flow capacity of 3.8 mgd.
More recent WWTF upgrades included:
• Sludge dewatering improvements consisting of replacement of the vacuum filters with a

new belt filter press and the construction of a new pre-engineered sludge dewatering
building in 1987.
• Construction of a new headworks facility and plant water pump station, each in a new
masonry building, in 1996.
• Construction of secondary clarifier and gravity thickener improvements in the 1990s.
• The installation of a dechlorination system in 1998.

LOVEFIE
LD WA
Y
¯
Man
h an R
iver
EASTHAMPTON WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
IVE
AR
IN DR
TH
UR
ST
L
R
GOSSE
EE
T
L OOMIS WAY
RE
ET
ST
LD
IE
VEF
LO
LA
FERRY STREET
YZ
D
DR
IVE
GAB
CE R
Lower Mill Pond A LE PLA I ELL
E WA
OAKD Y
LE
IA N
ENUE CI R C
PAR
ET
T RD AV
STREE EDWA
O UT H
RE
DART M ALEX
PEPIN AVENUE
S
Figure 3-1
E
I S DR
ST
Figure 4-1
ONS
AC
IVE
SHERM
ST
PL
EA
REET
GLEN
ST
TON ST Easthampton WWTF

LD
CHA
BOYLS
RE E
NT E
A
TREET L CO Location Plan

AN AV
ER
RS URT
EXETE
C
EM
T
OVE P
AMA
NDA
EN
L AN
E Integrated Water Resources
L IN
UE
Tighe&Bond
L ACE
UE Management Plan
N AVEN
CO
REET PRINCE
TO
A L ST LUK E
LN
FEDER S WAY
ST
RE
E
Feet
T
0 200 400 Date: May, 2018
Document Path: V:\Projects\E\E0713\EasthamptonWWTF_CADLayout_Locus.mxd E-0713

A site plan of the current WWTF is shown in Figure 4-2. The site plan shows the WWTF buildings,
tankage, and the liquid treatment process piping and channels.
There are five process/control buildings at the WWTF, as described below and shown in Figure
4-2.
Headworks Building –The Headworks Building contains the preliminary treatment
equipment.
RAS/WAS Building – The RAS/WAS Building houses the Return Activated Sludge (RAS)
pumps, the Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) pumps, the dewatering wetwell and pumps, a
return sludge wetwell, and a scum pump/scum pit.
Plant Water Building – The Plant Water Building contains the plant water system.
Solids Handling Building – The Solids Handling Building contains the belt filter press,
which dewaters the solids generated as part of the treatment process, and the polymer
feed system, which is used to enhance dewatering.
Control Building – The Control Building contains the facility office, bathrooms, the
laboratory, storage space, chlorine storage and feed rooms, a standby generator, boiler
room, control room, compressor room, pump room, and a workshop.
4.2.2.2 Overview of Treatment Processes
The Easthampton WWTF, a conventional activated sludge facility, was designed to remove solids
and organics using a combination of primary and secondary treatment. Seasonal disinfection of
the treated effluent using sodium hypochlorite is provided prior to final discharge to the
Connecticut River and the Manhan River. Note that effluent flow to the Manhan River only occurs
during high WWTF flow and/or high river level periods. Wastewater generated in the collection
system is ultimately conveyed to the WWTF headworks via two sewer lines: the Old Railroad
Interceptor and the force main from the Lovefield Street Pump Station. Wastewater flows by
gravity through the WWTF and its outfall piping to the receiving waters.
A description of the liquid and solids treatment processes at the WWTF are described below and
are shown schematically on Figure 4-3.

Manhan River
Outfall Pipe ¯
48"
Former Sludge Lagoons:
Closed & Capped
Plant Water
Building
Chlorine Contact
Solids Handling Chamber Special
Building MH10
Special
MH8 24" Overflow
Special
Secondary MH9
30"
Control Clarifier 30
Building "
No.1
Sludge
Thickener
Sludge Secondary
No.1
Thickener Clarifier 20"
Collection
No.2 No.2
System
48"
Concrete
20
Building
D ra
"
Channel
CT River
in
Aerated Outfall Pipe
Grit Tanks RAS/WAS
24"
Gate "
24 Building
Mixed Sludge
Well St r
Dewatering eam
Stock Pile Headworks Pump Pit
Area Building
Special
MH2 Aeration
Tanks
48"
16
30"
" Fo
r ce
Ma
in
30"
48"
48"
"
36
42" Special
48"
MH7
IVE
Special
Special Special Figure 3-2
IN DR
MH1 Figure 4-2

MH3 MH4
Special
S EL
Easthampton WWTF
MH6
Special Site Plan
GOS
LEGEND
MH5
Process Piping
Integrated Water Resources
Tighe&Bond
Approximate Fence Boundary Management Plan
Y
IS WA
Parcel Boundary LOO
MIS
OM
Notes: 1. Basemap from MassGIS (2013).
WAY
Feet
Date: May, 2018
LO
0 30 60
Document Path: V:\Projects\E\E0713\EasthamptonWWTF_CADLayout_Ortho_WStream.mxd E-0713

Grit &
Screenings
8" Waste Sludge
To
Chicopee Secondary
From Lovefield St. Clarifier
Landfill
Pump Station
16" Force Main

Chlorine
Rolloff Grit Mixed
Contact
Container Chambers Sludge 42" 8
Channel 6 Chamber
"
Well
24
Grinder M
48"
an
han
5 Ri
Effl. Channel
ve
Infl. Channel
Primary Aeration Secondary
48"
36" 36" 48" r
1 2 48" Scum Pump
7 Tanks
Clarifiers 4 RAS/WAS
24
Bypass With " RAS/WAS Pumps
Headworks 3 Building ent
Bar Rack
Building 4 8" Efflu
30" Bypass 24" a ted
e
Mechanical 9 Tr
Wastewater 8" Primary Overflow 10
Fine Screen Scum
Influent
12" Sludge Return Secondary Treated Effluent
Clarifier
3.1 MGD (Max)
Dewatered
Sludge Cake To
Connecticut
Polymer To Synagro River
Addition Incineration Facility
Gravity
Waterbury, CT
Thickener
Sludge Feed
LEGEND Pumps
Sludge Belt Filter
Transfer Gravity Solids Handling Building Press
FLOW THRU TREATMENT FACILITY Pumps Thickener
Odor Control
WASTE SLUDGE FLOW Chemical (VX-456)
Addition
Figure
FIGURE4-3
3-3
SCREENINGS & GRIT
Control Building
EASTHAMPTON WASTEWATER
RETURN SLUDGE FLOW TREATMENT FACILITY
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM
SCUM FLOW
NOTE: INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES
3 SPECIAL MANHOLES MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. THE PLANT WATER BUILDING IS
Tighe&Bond
PUMP NOT SHOWN ON THIS SCHEMATIC.
www.tighebond.com
SCALE: NO SCALE DATE: MAY 2018
Liquid Treatment Processes
The liquid treatment processes can be divided into 4 components:
1. Preliminary treatment
2. Primary treatment
3. Secondary treatment
4. Disinfection
Subsequently, the treated wastewater effluent is conveyed to either the Connecticut or Manhan
Rivers through outfall piping.
Preliminary Treatment
Wastewater entering the treatment facility first receives preliminary treatment that includes solids
grinding, screening and grit removal within the headworks building. Grinding is provided by a
channel grinder, and screening is provided by a hydraulically-cleaned fine screen with a solids
compactor.
The compacted screenings are discharged to a belt conveyor which transports the screenings to
a roll-off container in the Loadout Area of the Headworks Building. When the grinder is out of
service, solids are removed at the upstream end of the treatment facility by a bypass course bar
rack which requires manual cleaning. The screened wastewater flow is subsequently discharged
into two grit chambers, where grit is separated from the wastewater flow through settlement. The
settled grit is removed from the grit chambers by two bucket elevators, which discharge the grit
onto the screenings belt conveyor.
Primary Treatment
Subsequent to preliminary treatment, the wastewater receives primary treatment that includes
solids settlement through four primary clarifiers. The primary clarifiers are 99.5 feet long by 14
feet wide concrete rectangular basins with a 7.5-foot sidewater depth. The primary clarifiers
typically remove most of the settleable solids and approximately 53% of the suspended solids
(based on 2014/2015 data), which settle to the bottom of the tanks and are subsequently
removed.

Secondary Treatment
Following primary treatment, the wastewater undergoes secondary treatment that includes the
removal of organics and additional solids through biological treatment. Secondary treatment is
provided by two 100-foot long by 50-foot wide concrete rectangular aeration basins with a 12-foot
sidewater depth. There is typically only one basin in service at one time.
Two 50 horsepower mechanical aerators in

each basin (4 aerators total) provide oxygen for
the biological removal of organics. The aerators
are equipped with variable frequency drives
which allow them to be controlled based on a
dissolved oxygen level in the aeration basins.
Dissolved oxygen is measured by a probe at the
downstream end of each tank. In addition, the
aerators can be operated based on a timer
setting.
Aeration Tank Mechanical Aerator
In an effort to optimize nutrient (nitrogen)

removal at the WWTF, cyclic aeration is currently performed in the aeration tanks by turning the
aerators on for 1 hour and 15 minutes followed by a 45-minute period when the aerators are run
at a very low speed to maintain mixing within the tanks. During the aeration portion of the cycle,
aerator speed is varied to maintain a dissolved oxygen level in the range of 1.2 to 2.3 mg/L.
From the aeration tanks, wastewater is discharged into two 65-foot diameter center feed
secondary clarifiers. Stamford baffles have been added to improve the hydraulics through the
tanks. The secondary clarifiers serve two purposes: 1.) providing a clarified effluent through
settlement of biomass and solids, and 2.) providing a concentrated source of return activated
sludge (RAS) for activated sludge process control. The wastewater flow that enters the clarifiers
disperses radially through the outlet ports and progresses outward towards the peripheral
overflow weir. As the flow velocity decreases along the radial path, first the heavy solids and then
the progressively lighter solids settle to the bottom of the tank.

Disinfection
Following secondary treatment, the wastewater is disinfected seasonally (April 1 to October 31

for the Connecticut River outfall and April 1 to November 30 for the Manhan River outfall) using
liquid sodium hypochlorite, which is injected into the wastewater flow stream at Special Manhole
No. 8. Subsequently, the wastewater flows through a chlorine contact chamber, which consists
of an 87.5-foot long by 31-foot wide rectangular concrete tank, divided into two basins with an 8-
foot side water depth. The basins provide adequate contact time for the disinfectant chemical to
eliminate pathogenic organisms in the WWTF effluent prior to discharge to the Connecticut or
Manhan Rivers.
Outfalls
The Connecticut River outfall starts at a diversion chamber (Special Manhole No. 9) located just
downstream of the Chlorine Contact Chamber. During low flow and “normal” river level
conditions, all of the treated flow is conveyed by gravity to the Connecticut River through the
Connecticut River outfall piping (Outfall 001). However, during high flow and/or high river level
conditions, the Connecticut River outfall pipe surcharges and the wastewater backs up in Special
Manhole No. 9 to the extent that a portion of the wastewater overtops a sharp-crested weir and
flows into the Manhan River outfall (Outfall 002).

The hydraulic capacity of the Connecticut River outfall varies, depending on the Connecticut River
level/flow rate. The Connecticut River outfall was designed to accommodate a flow rate of 3.1
mgd at normal river level (101 feet), a flow rate of 2.7 mgd at the 10-year river flood stage (117
feet), and a flow rate of 2.1 mgd at the 50-year river flood stage (124 feet). The current permitted
capacity of the Connecticut River outfall is 3.0 mgd.
Connecticut River Outfall Pipe
The Connecticut River outfall consists of approximately 3,600 feet of 18-inch and 20-inch diameter
asbestos cement pressure pipe (siphon) at the upstream end and approximately 7,700 feet of 18-
inch through 24-inch diameter gravity pipe at the downstream end. The gravity pipe is
predominantly concrete. The Connecticut River outfall piping is located adjacent to the Manhan
River and the Connecticut River Oxbow and discharges into the Connecticut River just south of
the Oxbow.
The Manhan River outfall consists of approximately 50-feet of 24-inch diameter reinforced
concrete pipe and 300-feet of 48-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe. The 48-inch diameter
piping conveys both treated WWTF effluent flow during some flow/river level conditions and flow
from a nearby brook to the Manhan River, as shown on Figure 4-2.

Solids Treatment Processes
Screenings and Grit
As noted previously, screenings and grit are removed from the flow stream in the Headworks
Building and are discharged to a roll-off container in the Loadout Area. The grit and screenings
are disposed of at the Chicopee Landfill.
Primary Sludge and Scum
Settled solids are moved to a hopper at the upstream end of each primary settling tank by flights
set on parallel chains. These flights scrape the sludge to the hoppers intermittently based on
timers. The timers are set to alternate the operation of the east and west clarifier flight
mechanisms every hour, 24 hours per day. Sludge is withdrawn from each of the tank hoppers
approximately 40 minutes each day.
Primary sludge is removed from the tanks by gravity through the open/close operation of air-
actuated valves on timers. The primary sludge is conveyed to the mixed sludge well adjacent to
the primary clarifiers, where the primary sludge is combined with secondary waste-activated
sludge (WAS), which is subsequently pumped to the gravity thickeners.
Floating materials, such as grease and scum, are collected at the downstream end of each clarifier
by a lever-operated surface skimmer and are subsequently removed from the tank. The scum
collected flows by gravity through an 8-inch diameter pipe to the mixed sludge well, where it mixes
with primary sludge and WAS and is subsequently pumped to the gravity thickeners.

Secondary Sludge and Scum
Activated sludge that settles within the

secondary clarifiers is removed by a sludge
raking mechanism equipped with four, 6-inch
PVC sludge draft tubes. A portion of the
settled sludge is returned to SMH No. 7 to
“seed” the primary settling tank effluent
wastewater that enters the aeration tanks
(return activated sludge or RAS). In addition,
a portion of the remaining settled sludge is
pumped to the mixed sludge well (waste
activated sludge or WAS) in order to maintain Empty Gravity Thickener
a relatively consistent sludge blanket
thickness, where it mixes with primary sludge and is subsequently pumped to the gravity
thickeners. The WWTF staff have tried various methods of sludge wasting, and have found that
the use of the mixed sludge well as a blend tank is the most effective. The use of the mixed
sludge well creates a more homogenous sludge that is pumped to the gravity thickeners. The
RAS and WAS pumps are equipped with variable frequency drives to provide operating flexibility.
Floating material and scum that forms in the secondary clarifiers are removed by a revolving
skimmer with a surface blade which is attached to the sludge collector. This scum is collected in
a scum holding tank and subsequently pumped into the WAS line, which in turn is wasted to the
mixed sludge well and then pumped to the gravity thickeners as described above.

Sludge Thickening and Dewatering
As noted above, primary and secondary

sludge collected in the mixed sludge well is
pumped to the gravity thickeners at the
Control Building. The thickeners increase the
percent solids of the sludge to approximately
3.3 percent, on average (based on 2014/2015
WWTF data). Subsequently, the thickened
sludge is pumped to the belt filter press (BFP)
in the Solids Handling Building, where the Belt Filter Press
percent solids of the sludge is increased to

approximately 20.5 percent, on average (based on 2014/2015 WWTF data). The dewatered
sludge is hauled off site to the Synagro facility in Waterbury, CT for incineration. Decant from the
thickeners and filtrate from the BFP are returned to the primary clarifiers. Polymer is added to
the BFP feed to enhance dewatering.
4.2.3 Staffing Analysis
This sub-section provides information on existing WWTF staffing and evaluates whether staffing
is adequate based on published staffing guidelines. In particular, staffing adequacy was assessed
using “The Northeast Guide for Estimating Staffing at Publicly and Privately Owned Wastewater
Treatment Plants,” prepared by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
(NEIWPCC) and dated November 2008.
4.2.3.1 Existing Staff
WWTF staff currently consist of the following personnel, who work at the treatment facility Monday
through Friday, from 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM (there is only one shift per day):
1-WWTF Supervisor (Grade 7 license)
1-WWTF Foreman (Grade 6 license)
1-Industrial Pretreatment Program Coordinator
2-WWTF Operators (1 with a Grade 5 license and 1 with a Grade 6 license)
1-Mechanic (hoisting license)

There are two staff members who work at the WWTF on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays from
5:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Note that the WWTF staff members devoted to operating and maintaining
the wastewater collection system pump stations were excluded from this analysis since they are
not involved with operating and maintaining the WWTF.
4.2.3.2 Needed Staff
A staffing analysis was performed for the WWTF using spreadsheet models prepared by the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC). The NEIWPCC model
indicates that the facility is slightly understaffed, based on its capacity, the type of treatment
processes, the number of shifts, the current responsibilities of WWTF staff, and the age of the
facility components. The analysis estimated that 7 WWTF staff are required while there are
currently only 6 staff dedicated to operating and maintaining the WWTF. As such, we recommend
that the City consider adding one person to the WWTF staff.
4.2.4 Existing and Future Planning conditions
This sub-section summarizes the existing and projected future flows and loads to the WWTF and
the anticipated future regulatory requirements. This information was used to guide future
wastewater management and determine the need for future upgrades.
4.2.4.1 Existing and Projected Future WWTF Flows
Wastewater flow to the Easthampton WWTF is comprised of sanitary flow, septage and
infiltration/inflow (I/I).
Existing Wastewater Flows
Two years of WWTF flow data, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015, was used to establish
existing flow conditions as part of this evaluation. The average daily influent flows and
instantaneous peak influent flows measured during this period are presented in Table 4-1 and are
compared to the WWTF design flows.

Table 4-1
Comparison of Existing WWTF Influent Flows to Design Flows
Existing Flow Design % of Design

Flow Parameter
(mgd)1 Flow (mgd)2 Flow
Average Day 1.35 3.8 35.5%
Maximum Month 2.77 --- ---
Maximum Day 4.32 --- ---
Instantaneous Peak 6.80 12.7 53.5%
1Based on WWTF influent flow data from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015.
2Based on design criteria included in the 1975 WWTF O&M Manual.
Total sanitary flow to the WWTF was estimated as approximately 0.73 mgd using WWTF flow
data. The difference between the average daily wastewater flow of 1.35 mgd and the average
daily sanitary flow of 0.73 mgd is the average I/I entering the wastewater collection system (0.62
mgd). The septage flow component was determined to be negligible. Daily flows measured at
the WWTF in 2014 and 2015 are shown in Figure 4-4. The estimated average wastewater and
sanitary flows are shown in Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-4
2014 and 2015 InfluentFIGURE 3-4 – Easthampton WWTF
Flow Data
2014 and 2015 Influent Flow Data - Easthampton WWTF
5.00 5.00
4.80 4.80
4.60 Rainfall 4.60
4.40 4.40
Influent Flow
4.20 4.20
Average Daily Influent Flow Rate (mgd)
4.00 Average Daily Flow 4.00

3.80 Sanitary Flow 3.80
3.60 3.60
3.40 3.40
3.20
Spring Flow Spring Flow 3.20
Rainfall (in.)
3.00 3.00
2.80 2.80
2.60 2.60
2.40 2.40
2.20 2.20
2.00 2.00
1.80 1.80
1.60 1.60
1.40 1.40
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
01/01/14
01/15/14
01/29/14
02/12/14
02/26/14
03/12/14
03/26/14
04/09/14
04/23/14
05/07/14
05/21/14
06/04/14
06/18/14
07/02/14
07/16/14
07/30/14
08/13/14
08/27/14
09/10/14
09/24/14
10/08/14
10/22/14
11/05/14
11/19/14
12/03/14
12/17/14
12/31/14
01/14/15
01/28/15
02/11/15
02/25/15
03/11/15
03/25/15
04/08/15
04/22/15
05/06/15
05/20/15
06/03/15
06/17/15
07/01/15
07/15/15
07/29/15
08/12/15
08/26/15
09/09/15
09/23/15
10/07/15
10/21/15
11/04/15
11/18/15
12/02/15
12/16/15
12/30/15
Date
The sanitary flow was further divided into the customer types listed in Table 4-2 using WWTF
flow and water consumption data.

Table 4-2
Wastewater Flow By Customer Type
Estimated Wastewater Flow

Customer Type Percent of Total3
(gpd)
Residential 77.8% 568,100
Commercial 9.2% 66,900
Industrial1 9.3% 67,800
Institutional 2.6% 19,200
Municipal2 1.1% 8,000
TOTAL 100.0% 730,0004
1The industrial flow includes leachate from the capped municipal landfill, which is discharged to the wastewater
collection system.
2Because municipal facilities are not billed, the water use from the municipal facilities is not tracked well. As
such, we have estimated the municipal wastewater flow.

3Based on water use data.
4Based on measured wastewater flow.
Future Wastewater Flows

Future flows to the WWTF during the 20-year planning period were projected by considering:
1. The potential for the sewer system to be extended to serve properties currently served by
septic systems or undeveloped properties.
2. New developments within areas already served by the City’s wastewater collection system
(infilling)
3. Redevelopment of existing facilities that result in a change in wastewater flow
4. Changes in infiltration/inflow
A summary of the projected future average daily wastewater flows in the City, based on a 20-year
planning period, is presented in Table 4-3. A 20% contingency was added to the projected
increase in flow. We have projected that there will be no change to the amount of I/I over the
planning period.

Table 4-3
Projected Future Average Daily Wastewater Flow
Existing Flow Projected Increase Projected Future

Wastewater Category in Flow (gpd)
(gpd) Flow (gpd)
Residential 568,100 110,100 678,200
Commercial 66,900 13,400 80,300
Industrial1 67,800 17,700 85,500
Institutional 19,200 3,900 23,100
Municipal 8,000 1,600 9,600
Infiltration/Inflow 620,000 0 620,000
TOTAL 1,350,000 146,700 1,496,700
20% Contingency --- 29,300 29,300
TOTAL WITH CONTINGENCY --- 176,000 1,526,000
SAY --- --- 1,530,000
1The industrial flow includes leachate from the municipal landfill, which is discharged to the wastewater collection
system.
A summary of the average day, maximum month, maximum day and instantaneous peak WWTF
flows is presented in Table 4-4. The peaking factors, which are based on existing flows, were
used to estimate future flows.
Table 4-4
Summary of Existing and Projected Future Flows
Existing Flow Projected Future Design Flow

Parameter Peaking Factor1
(mgd)2 Flow (mgd)3 (mgd)4
Average Day --- 1.35 1.53 3.8

Maximum Month 2.1 2.77 3.21 ---
Maximum Day 3.2 4.32 4.90 ---
Instantaneous Peak 5.0 6.80 7.65 12.7

1Peaking factors are based on the ratio of the parameter value to the average daily flow using 2014/2015 flow
data.
2Based on recorded WWTF flow data from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015.
3The peaking factors based on existing flows were used to estimate future maximum month, maximum day and
instantaneous peak flows.

4The NPDES permit includes an average daily flow limit of 3.8 mgd .

4.2.4.2 Existing and Projected Future WWTF Loads
Existing Loads
Conventional secondary wastewater treatment facilities, such as Easthampton’s WWTF, are
typically designed based on influent flow, mass solids loadings, and mass organic loadings. As
such, a review of the solids and organics loadings is an important part of an evaluation of current
and projected future wastewater treatment capacity. Solids loading is represented by the total
suspended solids (TSS) measured at the WWTF. Organics loading is measured by the
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of the wastewater. In addition, because of nutrient loading
concerns and the potential for more stringent nutrient permit limits in the future, nitrogen and
phosphorous loadings were also reviewed in this evaluation.
A summary of the existing WWTF influent loadings described above, measured from January 1,
2014 to December 31, 2015, and a comparison to WWTF design values, are presented in Table
4-5.
Table 4-5
Existing WWTF Influent Loads
Peaking Existing Design

Parameter
Factor1 Loadings2 Values
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Average Day Equivalent Concentration (mg/L)3 --- 206 200
Average Day Loading (lbs/day) --- 2,324 6,370

Maximum Month Loading (lbs/day) 1.8 4,110 ---
Maximum Day Loading (lbs/day) 5.5 12,670 ---

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Average Day Equivalent Concentration (mg/L)3 --- 202 170
Average Day Loading (lbs/day) --- 2,269 5,400
Maximum Month Loading (lbs/day) 1.9 4,217 ---
Maximum Day Loading (lbs/day) 4.0 9,176 ---

Total Nitrogen (TN)
Average Day Equivalent Concentration (mg/L)3 --- 28.2 ---
Average Day Loading (lbs/day) --- 317 ---
Maximum Month Loading (lbs/day)4 1.5 464 ---

Maximum Day Loading (lbs/day)4 1.5 464 ---

Table 4-5
Existing WWTF Influent Loads
Peaking Existing Design

Parameter
Factor1 Loadings2 Values
Total Phosphorous (TP)
Average Day Equivalent Concentration (mg/L)3 --- 4.4 ---
Average Day Loading (lbs/day) --- 50 ---
Maximum Month Loading (lbs/day)4 1.8 92 ---
Maximum Day Loading (lbs/day)4 1.8 92 ---

1Peaking factors are based on the ratio of the parameter value to the average daily loadings.
2Existing loadings are based on measured WWTF data from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015.
3Equivalent concentration is calculated based on the average day loading and flow, and is not based on an
average of collected/measured concentration data (avg. day equiv. concentration=avg. day loading/(avg daily
flow x 8.34).
4Nitrogen and Phosphorus were sampled once per month. As such, the Maximum Month and Maximum Day
loading values are the same.
Based on the 2014 and 2015 WWTF operating data, the current solids and organics loadings to
the Easthampton WWTF are approximately one-third to one half of the treatment facility’s design
mass loadings. The mass loading values are calculated based on flow and constituent
concentrations, as shown below:
Mass Load (lbs/day) = Constituent Concentration (mg/L) x Flow Rate (mgd) x 8.34
Future Loads
The projected future loads are dependent on the projected future wastewater flows and the
projected future constituent concentrations. The projected future wastewater flows are presented
in Section 4.2.4.1. TSS and BOD loads are also expected to increase as a result of the increase
in wastewater flow from three breweries, which are projected to discharge higher than average
TSS and BOD loadings. For the remaining projected future facilities, the average TSS, BOD, TN
and TP concentrations were estimated using the projected increase in WWTF flow data and
average TSS and BOD concentrations measured at the WWTF in 2014/2015.
A summary of the existing and projected future flows and loads in the City, based on a 20-year
planning period, is presented in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6
Existing and Projected Future Wastewater Flows and Loads
Peaking Projected Design

Parameter Existing2 Units
Factor1 Future Capacity3
Influent Flow Rate
Average Day --- 1.35 1.53 3.8 mgd
Maximum Month 2.1 2.77 3.21 --- mgd
Maximum Day 3.2 4.32 4.90 --- mgd
Peak Instantaneous 5.0 6.80 7.65 12.7 mgd
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Avg Day Equivalent Concentration4 206 217 200 mg/L
Average Day Loading --- 2,324 2,774 6,370 lbs/day
Maximum Month Loading 1.8 4,110 4,993 --- lbs/day
Maximum Day Loading 5.5 12,670 15,257 --- lbs/day
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Average Day Equivalent
Concentration4 202 234 170 mg/L
Average Day Loading --- 2,269 2,985 5,400 lbs/day
Maximum Month Loading 1.9 4,217 5,672 --- lbs/day
Maximum Day Loading 4.0 9,176 11,940 --- lbs/day
Total Nitrogen (TN)
Concentration4 28.2 28.8 --- mg/L
Average Day Loading --- 317 367 --- lbs/day
Maximum Month Loading5 1.5 464 551 --- lbs/day
Maximum Day Loading5 1.5 464 551 --- lbs/day
Total Phosphorus (TP)
Concentration4 4.4 4.6 --- mg/L
Average Day Loading --- 50 59 --- lbs/day
Maximum Month Loading5 1.8 92 106 --- lbs/day
Maximum Day Loading5 1.8 92 106 --- lbs/day
1Peaking factors are based on the ratio of the parameter value to the average daily flow using 2014/2015 operating
data.
2Existing flow and load data are based on recorded WWTF data from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015.
3Design flows and loads are based on the rated capacity of the secondary WWTF.
4Equivalent concentration is calculated based on average day loading and flow, and is not based on an average of
collected/measured concentration data.

5Nitrogen and Phosphorus were sampled once per month. Therefore Maximum Month and Maximum Day loading
values are the same.

We used the existing and projected future flows and loads summarized above to evaluate
treatment facility upgrade alternatives and recommend specific upgrades.
4.2.5 Current and Projected Future Permit Limits
A review of current and projected future permit limits vs. WWTF performance was performed as
part of this evaluation. Through this review, we determined that:
1. There were some E. coli exceedances in 2014 and 2015. WWTF staff indicated that the
reported exceedances were a result of incorrectly interpreting laboratory testing data. The
E. coli testing methodology was adjusted in the fall of 2015 based on input from the
manufacturer of the WWTF’s testing equipment. Since methodology improvements were
made, no exceedances have been reported.
2. The City may receive a future nitrogen concentration limit, which is expected to be within
the range of 5 to 8 mg/L.
3. The calculated in-stream concentration of copper is close to the existing chronic toxicity
criteria for both the Connecticut and Manhan Rivers. The in-stream concentration is based
on the low flow in each river when effluent discharges occur. The low river flow value
used for the Connecticut River is the 7-day, 10-year statistical “dry weather” low river level,
commonly referred to as the 7Q10 low river flow. The 7Q10 flows are re-
evaluated/recalculated each permit cycle to include the most recent river flow statistics.
The MassDEP has indicated that the 7Q10 flows are trending downward. As such, there
is the potential for the in-stream copper concentrations to increase due to a reduction in
the 7Q10 river flows to the extent that they exceed the chronic toxicity criteria.
4.2.6 Condition Assessment
The condition of the WWTF was analyzed as part of this evaluation, which included a review of
the liquid treatment train, solids handling processes, WWTF buildings, ancillary systems, and
controls. Capital improvements expected to be needed at the WWTF over the next 20 years were
identified. The following components were considered during the inspection:
• Site/Civil • HVAC and Plumbing

• Process/Mechanical • Instrumentation and Controls
• Structural/Architectural • Health and safety
• Electrical

Wastewater components inspected that were identified as having deficiencies were placed into
one of the following action categories, based on their age, condition, function and use, and
safety/code considerations:
Immediate - Items that have an immediate need for repair or replacement because of their
condition or importance. Items that were safety or code concerns were included in this
category.
Category A - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 5 or fewer years - repair
or replacement is expected to be necessary during this period.
Category B - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 6 to 10 years - repair
Category C - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 11 to 20 years - repair
A total of 417 items were identified as requiring improvements over the next 20 years at a capital
cost of $12.6 million. A summary of the costs of the items identified by category is provided in
Table 4-7. A detailed list of the proposed improvements is included in the Wastewater Treatment
Facility Evaluation Technical Memorandum in Appendix L.

Tighe&Bond
Table 4-7
TABLE 3-7
WWTF Condition Assessment Summary
WWTF Condition Assessment Summary
No. of Improvements in Each Action Category Estimated Capital Costs for Each Action Category1,2
Location/Facility Category A Category B Category C Category A Category B Category C
Immediate Total Immediate Total
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years
WWTF Site 3 2 4 0 9 $4,000 $774,000 $50,000 $0 $828,000
Headworks Building 3 22 20 12 57 $11,000 $875,000 $165,000 $798,000 $1,849,000
Influent Channel/Parshall Flume 3 1 0 1 5 $26,000 $4,000 $0 $39,000 $69,000
Primary Clarifiers & Related Structures 0 10 0 0 10 $0 $369,000 $0 $0 $369,000
Aeration Tanks 2 9 5 2 18 $25,000 $1,170,000 $359,000 $355,000 $1,909,000
Secondary Clarfiers 1 0 3 0 4 $25,000 $0 $568,000 $0 $593,000
RAS/WAS Building 2 27 6 4 39 $2,000 $562,000 $65,000 $249,000 $878,000
Chlorine Contact Chamber 1 5 2 1 9 $24,000 $49,000 $48,000 $18,000 $139,000
Special Manhole No. 9 0 1 0 2 3 $0 $3,000 $0 $30,000 $33,000
Plant Water Building 3 13 3 14 33 $10,000 $84,000 $9,000 $292,000 $395,000
Mixed Sludge Well 0 1 0 1 2 $0 $3,000 $0 $12,000 $15,000
Gravity Sludge Thickeners 0 5 3 0 8 $0 $90,000 $345,000 $0 $435,000
Solids Handling Building 1 26 8 1 36 $6,000 $671,000 $1,025,000 $5,000 $1,707,000
Control Building 15 118 30 21 184 $80,000 $1,820,000 $1,089,000 $398,000 $3,387,000
TOTAL 34 240 84 59 417 $213,000 $6,474,000 $3,723,000 $2,196,000 $12,606,000
1
Costs are based on a May 2015 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 9975.
2
These are Engineer's Opinions of Probable Construction Cost. Tighe & Bond has no control over the cost or availability of contractor’s labor, equipment or materials, or over market conditions or the
contractor's method of pricing, and the opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of Tighe & Bond’s professional judgment and experience. Tighe & Bond makes no guarantee nor
warranty, expressed or implied, that the cost of the Work will not vary from the Opinions of Probable Construction Costs.
J:\E\E0713 Easthampton Eng Serv\08 Integrated Water Resources Management Plan\Wastewater\CIP Inspection\Costs\Combined Summary Table\Combined Prioritization Table 4-3-18/Table 10-1 5/21/2018
4.2.7 Energy Audit Summary
Tighe & Bond utilized the services of JK Muir, LLC, a specialist in performing energy audits, to
perform an energy audit for the City of Easthampton’s WWTF. The energy audit identified the
largest energy users and determine where energy-related improvements are most appropriate.
The recommended energy improvement are listed below in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8
Summary of Recommended Energy Improvements
Estimated Annual
Item Recommended Improvement Reduction in
Energy Costs
Replace mechanical aerators with new
Aeration System $20,000
mechanical aerators
Plant Water System Adjust plant water system controls $1,500
RAS Pumps Replace pumps $2,900
Replace fluorescent light fixtures with LED light
Building Lighting fixtures and install occupancy and photovoltaic ---1
sensors to reduce operating hours
Improve temperature control and/or install a
Control Building Heating ductless heating/cooling system for the office ---2
and laboratory
RAS/WAS Building, Plant Programmable thermostats to improve control
Water Building and Solids of building temperature or installation of $2,400
Handling Building Heating ductless heating/cooling systems
Consolidate the two services in order to take
Electricity Generation $4,000
advantage of lower generation rates
Further evaluate the feasibility, potential cost
Renewable Energy savings, and potential funding sources of a ---2
photovoltaic (PV) system
TOTAL ANNUAL COST SAVINGS $30,800
1Cost savings were not determined. We recommend that Eversource be contacted to schedule a site visit to
confirm that lighting fixture improvements will result in cost savings and to explore funding assistance
opportunities.
2Cost savings were not determined.

4.2.8 Secondary Treatment System Improvements
4.2.8.1 Background and Motivation
As part of this planning effort, upgrades to several existing treatment systems have been
considered. These include potential changes to the existing secondary treatment, solids handling,
and disinfection unit processes. These systems were selected for evaluation because they are
most likely to require changes/upgrades to meet current and projected future permit requirements,
improve energy efficiency and reduce operating costs. This sub-section discusses potential
secondary treatment system improvements over the planning period.
Secondary treatment system upgrades are expected to be necessary in the short-term to replace
equipment that is near or has exceeded its expected service life, especially the aeration system.
In addition, secondary treatment system upgrades may be needed in the future to comply with
more stringent permit limits. As discussed in Section 4.2.5, there is the potential for the City to
receive more stringent permit limits in the future for total nitrogen and copper.
In the evaluation of secondary treatment system upgrades that may be needed over the 20-year
planning period, the aeration system was a primary focus because:
1. The aeration system is a critical component of the secondary treatment process and the
wastewater treatment process as a whole
2. Its reliable and flexible operation is important to meeting current and future permit
requirements (for nitrogen, in particular)
3. The aeration system is the largest energy user at the WWTF
As such, we have compared and evaluated different aeration systems in order to identify a system
that will provide the City with greater long-term value, considering current and projected future
permit requirements and energy efficiency. In addition, we have identified other future
improvements to the secondary treatment system that may be needed to comply with future
permit requirements.
4.2.8.2 Aeration System
The WWTF currently uses mechanical aerators to provide aeration as part of the biological
treatment process. Two of the four aerators are over 40 years old and are expected to require

replacement within the next 5 years, while a third aerator is 15 years old and is expected to require
replacement within the next 10 years. The fourth aerator is 5 years old and is expected to require
replacement within the next 20 years. As such, all of the aerators are expected to require
replacement over the next 20 years.
The following types of new aeration systems were considered as part of this evaluation:
1. Replacement with new mechanical aerators on variable frequency drives (VFDs)
2. Replacement with a fine bubble aeration system and energy efficient blowers
Improved aeration is expected to be necessary in order to meet the anticipated future nitrogen
removal requirements. For the purposes of this evaluation, we assumed a future nitrogen permit
limit of 8 mg/L. Several treatment processes were considered to meet this nitrogen removal limit,
including cyclic aeration, the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process, and the Bardenpho
process. The Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process was determined to be appropriate to
meet the 8 mg/L nitrogen effluent limit. However, if a lower limit is determined to be necessary,
then the treatment process would need to be re-evaluated. A schematic of the MLE process is
shown below.
FIGURE 6-2
MLE Process
RAS
Nitrate Recycle
Influent Flow Effluent Flow
Anoxic Reactor Aerobic Reactor

Secondary Clarifier
Under both aeration system alternatives, an anoxic reactor with mixer would need to be
constructed upstream of each aeration tank. In addition, a nitrate recycle pump would be installed
at the end of each aeration tank to allow flow from these tanks to be pumped back to the beginning
of the new anoxic reactor.
Replacement of the existing mechanical aerators with new mechanical aerators was determined
to be the more cost-effective option. In addition, new mechanical aerators would provide the
following advantages over a diffused aeration system:
• Easier to operate and maintain

• WWTF operators are more familiar with this equipment

• Less likely to have foaming problems
• Can still provide mixing during periods when little aeration is required
As such, we recommend that the existing mechanical aerators be replaced with new mechanical
aerators. Note that the largest energy users at the WWTF are the mechanical aerators. The
energy audit performed as part of this evaluation indicated that significant energy cost savings
can be realized (as much as $20,000/year) through replacement of the existing mechanical
aerators with new, more efficient mechanical aerators.
The other improvements noted that would be necessary to provide nitrogen removal (anoxic
reactor with mixer and nitrate recycle pump) are not recommended until the City receives a more
stringent nitrogen permit limit so that those improvements can be designed based on the actual
permit limit. In comparison, aeration system improvements are expected to be needed in the
near-term due to the age of the equipment.
4.2.8.3 Other Potential Future Secondary Treatment System Improvements for

Nitrogen Removal
In addition to an upgraded aeration system and an anoxic reactor with mixer and nitrate recycle
pump (for the MLE process) for each aeration tank, additional improvements may be needed
during the 20-year planning period if a more stringent nitrogen permit limit is issued to the City.
These potential improvements are described below.
Aeration Tank
Depending on the nitrogen permit limit issued and whether there are seasonal variations to the
limit, a new aeration train, including an anoxic zone, may be needed, similar to the two existing
aeration trains.
Secondary Clarifier
Depending on the nitrogen permit limit issued and whether there are seasonal variations to the
limit, a new secondary clarifier may be needed to allow the WWTF to accommodate a higher
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration in the aeration tanks. Increasing the MLSS
and correspondingly, solids retention time (SRT), in the aeration tanks will result in a higher solids
loading in the clarifiers, reducing their capacity to handle peak flows.
Alkalinity/pH Adjustment

pH is an important factor affecting nitrification. The nitrifying microorganisms require a fairly
neutral pH. If the wastewater does not contain adequate alkalinity, the nitrification reaction can
cause the pH of the system to decrease, and can potentially kill the microorganism population in
the biological treatment system. In addition, without adequate alkalinity, the decreased pH value
may result in a permit violation for pH. At facilities with insufficient alkalinity, a chemical process
for pH adjustment is typically included in the design.
A 2008 nitrogen optimization study performed by Tighe & Bond concluded that, based on the
limited data available, sufficient alkalinity for enhanced nitrogen removal may not be available
without capital improvements. The need for pH adjustment will depend on the actual nitrogen
permit limit issued (if one is issued). We recommend that if a more stringent nitrogen permit limit
is issued to the City, that a more detailed evaluation of the need for supplemental alkalinity be
performed at that time.
Carbon Addition
The availability of a carbon source is an important factor in the denitrification process. If the
quantity of BOD in the wastewater is not sufficient to sustain the denitrification reaction, a
supplemental carbon source will need to be added to the process. Typical sources of
supplemental carbon include methanol, ethanol, and glucose (sugar). An alternative to the
addition of a carbon source would be to alter the primary clarifier operations (taking tanks offline)
to allow more soluble BOD to flow into the secondary treatment stages. If nitrification is required
in the future, we recommend that this no-cost alternative be considered first, prior to making any
capital improvements related to carbon addition.
The need for a supplemental carbon source will depend on the actual nitrogen permit limit issued
(if one is issued). A more detailed evaluation of available carbon would need to be performed at
that time.
4.2.8.4 Other Potential Future Improvements for Copper Removal
As discussed earlier in this report, there is the potential for the in-stream copper concentrations
to increase due to a reduction in the 7Q10 river flows to the extent that they exceed the chronic
toxicity criteria. Other Massachusetts wastewater treatment facilities that have been issued
copper permits have been required to perform a study to characterize the sources of copper in
their collection system and develop alternatives for meeting the copper limit. Alternatives may
include:

1. Source control
a. More stringent industrial pretreatment permit limits, if a significant quantity of

copper is being discharged from industries in the City
b. Chemical addition to inhibit corrosion of copper water distribution system piping
2. Enhanced treatment to remove copper at the WWTF
The most appropriate method of copper removal, if determined to be necessary at some future
date, cannot be determined without further study and until the actual permit limit is issued.
4.2.9 Solids Handling Improvements
The WWTF currently collects solids that settle at the bottom of its primary and secondary
clarifiers. These solids are periodically removed from the clarifiers and conveyed to a mixed
sludge well. The solids in the mixed sludge well are pumped to two gravity thickeners where the
mixed sludge is consolidated to approximately 3.3% solids, on average (based on 2014/2015
WWTF data). Subsequently, the thickened sludge is pumped to a belt filter press (BFP) where
it is dewatered to approximately 20.5% solids, on average (based on 2014/2015 WWTF data).
The dewatered sludge is subsequently hauled off site for disposal. Currently, the City has a
contract with Synagro to haul its dewatered solids to Synagro’s Waterbury, CT facility for
incineration.
The cost to haul and dispose of its dewatered solids (sludge) is one of the largest operating costs
at the WWTF (34% of the total budget). In addition, there is a significant cost to the City to
dewater its sludge to reduce the volume of material to be disposed. As such, we evaluated
whether an alternate approach to disposal may be more cost-effective: disposing of liquid
(thickened) sludge and abandonment of the sludge dewatering system. In this case, the liquid
sludge would be hauled to Synagro’s Waterbury, CT facility, for disposal.
Continuing to dewater the sludge and dispose of the sludge cake was determined to be less
expensive than discontinuing sludge dewatering and disposing of liquid sludge. As such, we
recommend that the City continue its current mode of solids handling operation. However, we
recommend that the city investigate the costs charged by other facilities to dispose of sludge
cake, especially in light of the potential for operation at Synagro’s Waterbury, CT disposal facility
to be affected by recent, more stringent federal sewage sludge incinerator emission
requirements.

4.2.10 Disinfection System Improvements
4.2.10.1 Background and Motivation
On July 23, 2013, the City of Easthampton received a Notice of Noncompliance (NON) from
MassDEP for several WWTF NPDES Permit violations and/or exceedances that occurred over
the previous 13 months for daily maximum E. coli bacteria. The NON mandated that the City
submit a report addressing the following action items:
• Identify the WWTF staff responsible for making and implementing process control
decisions to consistently meet NPDES permit limits.
• Provide explanations for repeat violations for E. coli bacteria from May 2012 to May 2013.
• Provide the steps implemented, or to be implemented, to correct the causes for the
violations.
• Provide steps for avoiding future violations.
In response to the NON requirements, the City submitted to the MassDEP in August 2013 a report
prepared by Tighe & Bond that recommended improvements to address the E. coli violations.
The following conclusions and recommendations regarding effluent disinfection were included in
that report:
• E. coli violations are occurring mainly at typical facility flow rates (rather than during high
flow periods). Correspondingly, Chlorine Contact Chamber residence time does not
appear to be a major factor in the violations.
• Seasonal changes appear to impact chlorine demand.
• In order to obtain more effective kills, the chlorine residual needs to be kept as high as
possible without exceeding the permit limit.
• Improvements were recommended to the then current system of manually adjusting the
chlorine dose.
• Modifications to the existing automatic control system were recommended to control the
chlorine pump speed based on facility effluent flow to better manage the chlorine
residuals. This control modification was expected to result in the need for fewer manual
adjustments to obtain the desired chlorine residual.

4.2.10.2 Current Chlorination Operations
The WWTF is required to disinfect its effluent discharge seasonally, from April 1 to October 31 for
the Connecticut River outfall, and from April 1 to November 30 for the Manhan River outfall.
Outfall samples are collected at the following locations:
Outfall Sampling Location Comments

Connecticut River Downstream end of Chlorine At the time of the NON, samples were
Contact Chamber (CCC) collected farther downstream, at Fort Hill
Road
Manhan River Downstream end of CCC
Disinfection is provided using liquid sodium hypochlorite. The sodium hypochlorite feed system
consists of two bulk chemical storage tanks and 2 chemical feed pumps. One pump is used to
convey sodium hypochlorite to the WWTF effluent at Special Manhole No. 8, located just
upstream of the chlorine contact chamber, for disinfection. The other pump is used for chlorination
of the sludge return line or for thickener odor control.
Either one of the two chemical feed pumps can be used for effluent disinfection. Prior to the 2015
disinfection season, dosing rates (pump speed and stroke) were adjusted manually one or two
times per day based on operator experience and observed chlorine residuals. Since that time,
the WWTF has improved chlorination addition control by first pacing chlorine addition based on
flow and then, more recently, pacing chlorine addition based on chlorine residual.
In 2014/2015, 12 of the 146 E. coli samples collected exceeded the maximum day permit limit, in
July 2014 (1), April 2015 (7), July 2015 (2), and August 2015 (2). In addition, the monthly average
E. coli value in April 2015 exceeded the permit limit. WWTF staff have indicated that the reported
exceedances are believed to be a result of incorrectly interpreting laboratory testing data. Note
that the prior testing methodology may have also contributed to the E. coli exceedances reported
by the City prior to 2014. The E. coli testing methodology was adjusted in the fall of 2015 based
on input from the manufacturer of the WWTF’s testing equipment. Since methodology
improvements have been made, no exceedances have been reported.
4.2.10.3 Disinfection Performance Improvements
In an effort to improve disinfection performance since the 2013 NON was issued to the City, the
WWTF has taken the following steps:

1. Improved flow metering accuracy to improve chlorine addition control when the chlorine
was paced based on flow rate.
2. Improved the method of controlling chlorine addition; liquid sodium hypochlorite is
currently added to the effluent wastewater flow based on chlorine residual which is
continuously monitored in the wastewater effluent.
3. Changed the method of testing for E. coli, which has improved testing accuracy and
reduced the number of “false positives”.
No further changes to the method of disinfecting the wastewater effluent is recommended at this
time or are believed to be needed.
4.2.11 Outfall Evaluation
4.2.11.1 Background
As describe earlier in this report, there are two WWTF outfalls: the Connecticut River Outfall and
the Manhan River Outfall. The Connecticut River outfall (Outfall 001) begins at Special Manhole
No. 9, located just downstream of the Chlorine Contact Chamber, and runs easterly approximately
11,300 feet to the Connecticut River, just south of the Oxbow. The upstream section of the
Connecticut River outfall consists of approximately 3,600 feet of 18-inch and 20-inch asbestos
cement pressure pipe (siphon) and the downstream section consists of approximately 7,700 feet
of 18-inch through 24-inch gravity pipe that is predominantly concrete. The Connecticut River
outfall is of concern because of its age (approximately 60 years old), long length (over 2 miles
long) and location - the majority of the Connecticut River outfall pipe is located in undeveloped
areas along the Manhan River and Oxbow that are difficult to access for maintenance. The
approximate layout of the Connecticut River outfall is shown in Section 4.2.2.2.
The Manhan River outfall (Outfall 002) also begins at Special Manhole No. 9 and consists of
approximately 50 feet of 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe and 300 feet of 48-inch reinforced
concrete pipe. The 48-inch piping conveys both treated WWTF effluent flow during some
flow/river level conditions and flow from a nearby brook to the Manhan River. The Manhan River
outfall piping is of lesser concern than the Connecticut River outfall piping because it is newer
(constructed during the WWTF upgrade in the 1970s), shorter, and easier to access for
maintenance.

During low flow and “normal” river level conditions, all of the treated flow is conveyed by gravity
to the Connecticut River through the Connecticut River outfall piping. However, during high flow
and/or high river level conditions, the Connecticut River outfall pipe surcharges and the
wastewater backs up in Special Manhole No. 9 to the extent that a portion of the wastewater
overtops a sharp-crested weir and flows into the Manhan River outfall. The WWTF was designed
so that treated wastewater effluent would be discharged to the Connecticut River when flows are
less than or equal to approximately 3.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and during normal river level
conditions. When effluent flows exceeded 3.1 mgd, a portion of the treated wastewater flows was
to be conveyed to the Manhan River. The WWTF’s current permit is based on a peak flow of 3.0
mgd to the Connecticut River outfall.
WWTF staff have observed a reduction in the capacity of the Connecticut River outfall since it
was last cleaned in December 2009/January 2010. Currently, wastewater begins to discharge to
the Manhan River at effluent flows of approximately 1.9 mgd during normal river level conditions.
During 2014 and 2015, wastewater overflowed to the Manhan River on 178 days and
approximately 4% of the total effluent flow volume was discharged to the Manhan River.
4.2.11.2 Short-Term Improvements
In order to address the concern that there has been a reduction in capacity in the Connecticut
River outfall piping, we recommend that:
1. The gravity portion of the outfall be re-inspected to determine if cleaning is again needed.
2. The siphon section be cleaned using the “ice pigging” process. Both ice pigging and
conventional pigging were considered to clean the siphon, but ice pigging is
recommended because it eliminates the risk of a blockage occurring during the cleaning
process, which is a concern with conventional pipe pigging.
4.2.11.3 Long-Term Improvements
Several alternatives were considered to improve the outfalls in the long-term, including:
1. Manhan River Outfall Elimination – Because the gravity flow capacity of the Connecticut
River Outfall is limited, this alternative would require the construction of a pump station
and the conversion of the Connecticut River outfall piping to a pressure sewer in order for
this outfall piping to accommodate the full range of current and projected future WWTF

effluent flows under all river level conditions. In order to accommodate the higher flows
and, correspondingly, the pressure conditions anticipated, a cured-in-place liner suitable
for pressure conditions would need to be installed within the Connecticut River outfall
piping. The estimated capital cost of this alternative, which would include a new effluent
pump station and outfall lining, is $8.4 million.
2. Connecticut River Outfall Elimination – Elimination of the Connecticut River Outfall would
result in a significant increase in treated wastewater to the Manhan River, which would
likely result in more stringent permit limits at the WWTF. Correspondingly, significant
improvements would be needed at the WWTF in order to comply with the more stringent
permit limits. The estimated capital cost of the anticipated WWTF improvements under
this alternative is expected to range from $11± million to $20± million.
3. Continue to Use Both Outfalls – Continuing to use both outfall pipes was considered, with
options to improve access to and reduce maintenance of the Connecticut River Outfall,
including:
a. Relocate portions of the Connecticut River Outfall to East Street. Under this
alternative, most of the gravity outfall piping would be relocated to below City
streets (Fort Hill Road and East Street), which would provide better access to this
portion of the outfall piping. The siphon portion of the outfall piping would still be
cross-country, through areas that are difficult to access. This alternative was not
recommended due the expected high costs related to the deep sewer construction
required, which would exceed 70 feet in some areas, and the corresponding need
to use trenchless pipe installation methods.
b. Relocate portions of the Connecticut River Outfall to the Manhan Rail Trail. Under
this alternative, most of the gravity outfall piping would be relocated to below Fort
Hill Road or the Manhan Rail Trail, which would provide better access to this
portion of the outfall piping. The siphon portion of the outfall piping would still be
cross-country, through areas that are difficult to access. This alternative was not
recommended due the expected high costs related to the deep sewer construction
required, which would exceed 50 feet in some areas, and the corresponding need
to use trenchless pipe installation methods.
c. Construct access road along Connecticut River Outfall. Under this alternative, the
City’s easement over the outfall piping would be cleared to reduce the potential for

root intrusion into the sewer, and a 15± foot wide access road would be constructed
within this cleared corridor from the WWTF to Route 91. The access road would
provide improved access to the outfall piping for maintenance. The estimated
capital cost of this alternative is $850,000.
d. Line Connecticut River Outfall piping. Under this alternative, a cured-in-place liner
would be installed within the outfall piping. The liner would eliminate the root
intrusion problem that the City currently experiences, prevent solids from entering
the pipe through open joints, and extend the service life of the outfall. The
estimated capital cost of this alternative is $3,471,000.
Because of the high cost of eliminating either the Connecticut River or Manhan River outfalls, we
recommend that the City continue its current mode of operation, using the Connecticut River
outfall as the primary outfall and only discharging to the Manhan River outfall during high flow and
river level conditions.
Relocation of the Connecticut River outfall piping to either East Street or adjacent to the Manhan
Rail Trail was considered. However, due to the construction difficulties (deep excavation) and
associated high costs related to both relocation alternatives, relocation is not recommended.
We recommend that both lining the Connecticut River outfall piping and construction of an access
road over the outfall pipe be considered to extend the life of the outfall, reduce maintenance, and
improve access. If the City decides to not construct the access road, it may still wish to clear the
easement to improve access for maintenance.
4.2.12 Recommended WWTF Improvements
The recommended improvements at Easthampton’s WWTF to preserve and extend the life of the
City’s existing assets and maintain reliable service over the next 20 years and beyond are
summarized below. The recommended improvements are driven by the need to replace aging
equipment and facilities, meet current and projected future permit limits, and reduce energy costs.
In addition, improvements were considered to reduce operation and maintenance costs.

Table 4-9
WWTF Recommendations Summary
Item Recommendation
Staffing Add one staff person
Aeration System Replace mechanical aerators with new, more efficient mechanical aerators
Solids Handling Continue to dewater sludge and dispose of sludge cake
Condition Assessment Address deficiencies in accordance with prioritization table
Energy Replace mechanical aerators, RAS pumps, plant water pumps, perform lighting
and HVAC upgrades1
Outfall Short-term - Clean and inspect outfall
Long-term – Line piping and construct access road
1In most cases, the improvement has also been recommended as part of the condition assessment.
The costs of the recommended improvements are summarized in Table 4-10.
Table 4-10
Costs of Recommended Improvements
Estimated Capital Costs3,4
Short-Term Long-Term
Total
Items Improvement1 Improvement2
Identified Through Condition Assessment $6,687,000 $5,919,000 $12,606,000
Outfall Inspection & Cleaning $70,000 $0 $70,000
Outfall Lining $0 $3,471,000 $3,471,000
Outfall Access Road $0 $850,000 $850,000
TOTAL $6,757,000 $10,240,000 $16,997,000

1
Recommended within the next 5 years,
2Recommended within the next 6 to 20 years.
3Costs are based on a May 2015 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 9975.
4These are Engineer's Opinions of Probable Construction Cost. Tighe & Bond has no control over the cost or
availability of contractor’s labor, equipment or materials, or over market conditions or the contractor's method of
pricing, and the opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of Tighe & Bond’s professional
judgment and experience. Tighe & Bond makes no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, that the cost
of the Work will not vary from the Opinions of Probable Construction Costs.

4.3 PUMP STATIONS EVALUATION
This report sub-section includes a summary of the field investigations and evaluations performed
to predict improvements that are expected to be needed at the City’s wastewater pump stations
over the next 20 years. The recommended improvements are driven by the need to replace aging
equipment and facilities and reduce energy costs. In addition, improvements were considered to
reduce operation and maintenance costs. A detailed description of this evaluation is included in
the Wastewater Pump Stations Evaluation Technical Memorandum in Appendix M.
4.3.1 Project Drivers
The main drivers for improvements at the City’s wastewater pump stations include:
• Aging equipment/facilities
4.3.1.1 Aging Equipment/Facilities
There are 18 municipal wastewater pump stations in the City. Only 3 of the 18 pump stations are
less than 30 years old. The oldest pump station, the Lownds Avenue Pump Station, is over 50
years old. As a result, many pump station components are old and have exceeded their expected
service lives. Generally, the older equipment require greater maintenance and, in some cases,
replacement parts are now difficult to obtain. We anticipate that, over the next 20 years, most of
the older equipment will require replacement. A condition assessment was performed as part of
this evaluation that included a review of each of the 18 municipal pump stations.
4.3.1.2 Energy Efficiency
Due to the age and condition of some of the existing equipment at the wastewater pumping
stations, existing equipment, such as pumps, motors and drives, are not as energy efficient as
the newer equipment available today or as efficient as they were when first installed. Energy
efficiency upgrades provide an opportunity to reduce operating costs at the pumping stations.
This evaluation includes an energy audit to identify potential improvements to reduce energy
costs.

4.3.2 Background
There are 18 municipal wastewater pump

stations in Easthampton. The pump stations vary
in size, style, and complexity depending, in part,
on the size of their service areas and the
technologies that were available when they were
installed. The larger pump stations, which
include the Lovefield Street, Daley Field, Liberty
Street, Hendrick Street and Mount Tom pump
Lovefield St. Pump Station Site
stations, are multi-level facilities with the
following components:
• Below-grade concrete wetwells
• Below-grade concrete or steel (in the case of the Hendrick Street Pump Station) drywells
where the pumps are located
• Above-grade masonry buildings where the electrical components and controls are located
• Standby generators
• Influent channels with grinders (at the Lovefield Street, Daley Field, and Liberty Street
Pump Stations only)
The remaining pumping facilities are either submersible, package wet pit/dry pit, or ejector-type
stations.
A summary of the City’s municipal pump stations is presented in Table 4-11 and a sewer system
map showing pump station locations and service areas is included in the Pump Station
Evaluations Technical Memorandum in Appendix M.

Table 4-11
Pump Station Summary

4.3.3 Staffing
A staffing analysis was performed for the operation and maintenance of the wastewater pump
stations using:
• Information included in Massachusetts Regulation 314 CMR 12.00, which indicates

minimum inspection frequencies based on facility pump rates.
• “The Northeast Guide for Estimating Staffing at Publicly and Privately Owned Wastewater
Treatment Plants,” published by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission (NEIWPCC), dated November 2008, which provides guidance on staff
productivity.
The City has two staff devoted full-time to operating and maintaining its wastewater pump stations
(operators) and one staff member who assists with pump station maintenance activity part time
(mechanic). In addition, as noted above, WWTF and other DPW staff are available to assist with
pump station maintenance activities, when needed.
The number of staff needed to operate and maintain the pump stations was determined by:
1. Estimating the average number of hours per week that the pump stations are inspected,
estimating the average number of hours per week that pump station maintenance is
performed, and, subsequently, calculating the total hours per year of inspection, operation
and maintenance activity.
2. Estimating the number of staff needed using the 2008 NEIWPCC staffing guidance
document, which indicates that annual number of work hours per staff member.
Based on the staffing analysis, we calculate that two full-time pump station operation and
maintenance staff and one part-time staff member are required, which matches the City’s current
staffing level for pump station operation and maintenance. Based on this analysis and input from
the City regarding staffing adequacy, the number of staff in place to operate and maintain the
pump stations appears to be appropriate.

4.3.4 Condition Assessment
The condition of the pump stations was analyzed as part of this evaluation, which included a
review of the buildings, ancillary systems, controls and equipment. Capital improvements
expected to be needed at the pump stations over the next 20 years were identified. The following
items were considered during the inspection:
• Site/Civil • HVAC and Plumbing

• Process/Mechanical • Instrumentation and Controls
• Structural/Architectural • Health and safety
• Electrical
Wastewater components inspected that were identified as having deficiencies were placed into
one of the following action categories, based on their age, condition, function and use, and
safety/code considerations:
condition or importance. Items that were safety or code concerns were included in this category.
Category A - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 5 or fewer years - repair or
replacement is expected to be necessary during this period.
Category B - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 6 to 10 years - repair or
Category C - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 11 to 20 years - repair or

A total of 275 items were identified as requiring
improvements over the next 20 years at a capital
cost of approximately $6.2 million. However,
some of these improvements would not be
necessary if the City proceeds with the elimination
of the four pump stations evaluated in this study
(see Section 4.3.6) and/or replacement of the
Liberty Street Pump Station. A detailed
description of the condition assessment and a list
Liberty St. Pump Station Site
of the proposed improvements is included in the
Pump Stations Evaluation Technical Memorandum in Appendix M.
The Liberty Street Pump Station is currently significantly oversized and requires significant
improvements, especially in the wetwell area. As such, we recommend that the City consider
replacement of this facility with a smaller capacity pump station better suited for current and
projected future flows in this service area. The capital cost to replace this pump station was
estimated as approximately $549,000.
A detailed list of the proposed improvements is included in the Pump Stations Evaluation
Technical Memorandum in Appendix M.
4.3.5 Energy Evaluation
An energy audit was performed at the Lovefield Street and Daley Field Pump Stations, the two
largest pump stations in the City. It was determined during the evaluation that the energy use at
the other pump stations was too low to warrant a detailed energy audit.
The energy audit identified the largest energy users at the Lovefield Street and Daley Field Pump
Stations and determined where energy-related improvements are most appropriate. The
recommended energy improvements are listed below:
1. Lovefield Street Pump Station – We recommend replacing one pump with a jockey pump
to improve efficiency and, correspondingly, reduce energy costs. This change is predicted
to reduce energy costs by approximately $4,900/year. The estimated capital cost of this

improvement is $74,000. The pumps at this facility are expected to require replacement
within the next 10 years.
2. Daley Field Pump Station – Due to the relatively high heating costs at this facility, we
recommend that the City consider installing a programmable thermostat to better control
heating at this facility during the winter months.
4.3.6 Pump Station Elimination
Four pump stations were evaluated to determine whether they can be eliminated and replaced
with new gravity sewers:
1. Lownds Avenue Pump Station
2. Ballard Street Pump Station
3. East Street North Pump Station
4. Pomeroy Meadow Road Pump Station
Each pump station site was surveyed and information was collected on sewer inverts and surface
grades along routes expected to be viable for new gravity sewers that would replace the pump
stations. The survey data was supplemented with orthographic mapping, GIS lidar contour data
available through the state, sewer data provided by the City, and field investigations.
4.3.6.1 Lownds Avenue Ejector Station
The Lownds Avenue Ejector Station is of particular

concern because it is the oldest “pumping” facility
in the City. It is an ejector-type facility that is no
longer common and, as a result, replacement parts
are often difficult to obtain. As such, the City
requested that its elimination be evaluated.
The ejector station is located at the intersection of

Lownds Avenue and Williston Avenue, near Daley
Lownds Ave., Looking East from Nonotuck Park Rd.
Field. The Lownds Avenue Ejector Station serves
approximately six homes on Lownds Avenue and Williston Avenue. Wastewater flow entering

the ejector station is discharged through a 4-inch force main northerly to a gravity sewer on
Williston Avenue.
Two alternatives were considered as part of this evaluation:
Alternative 1 - Convey the wastewater flow to a gravity sewer on Williston Avenue.
Alternative 2 – Convey the wastewater flow to the Daley Field Pump Station.
Only Alternative 2 was determined to be feasible. Under this alternative, the wastewater flow to
the Lownds Avenue Ejector Station would be conveyed with new 8-inch gravity sewers westerly
along Lownds Avenue, southerly along Nonotuck Park Road, and then westerly along the access
road to the Daley Field Pump Station, discharging into the manhole along the White Brook
Interceptor just upstream of the pump station. The total length of new sewers required is
approximately 1,200 feet. The estimated cost of the pump station elimination work under this
alternative is $608,000.
4.3.6.2 Ballard Street Pump Station
The Ballard Street Pump Station is a

submersible pumping facility that was
constructed in 1977. This pump station is
located off of Ballard Street, just north of the
intersection with Florence Road. The Ballard
Street Pump Station serves homes on Florence
Road, between Ballard Street and Lyman Street.
Wastewater flow entering the pump station is
discharged through a 4-inch force main southerly Ballard St., looking Northeast at Valley Apartments
to a gravity sewer on Florence Road.
Alternative 1 - Convey the wastewater flow southerly to a gravity sewer on Florence Road.
Alternative 2 – Convey the wastewater flow to the Valley Apartments sewer.

the Ballard Street Pump Station would be conveyed with new 8-inch gravity sewers easterly along
the driveway to the pump station to Ballard Street, northerly along Ballard Street, and then easterly
to an existing sewer on Valley Apartments property. The total length of new sewers required is
approximately 1,100 feet. Note that this alternative would require that the City obtain an easement
for construction and subsequent maintenance of the portion of the new sewer that would be
constructed on Valley Apartments property. The estimated cost of the pump station elimination
work under this alternative is $570,000.
4.3.6.3 East Street North Pump Station
The East Street North Pump Station is a submersible pumping facility that was constructed in
1978. This pump station is located in the central portion of East Street, between Valley Lane and
Raymond Avenue. The East Street North Pump Station serves the homes on East Street,
between Valley Lane and Raymond Avenue. Wastewater flow entering the pump station is
discharged through a 4-inch force main northerly to a gravity sewer on East Street.
Three alternatives were considered as part of

this evaluation:
Alternative 1 - Convey the wastewater flow

southerly to a gravity sewer on Valley Lane or
East Street.
Alternative 2 – Convey the wastewater flow

northerly to a gravity sewer on East Street.
Alternative 3 – Convey the wastewater flow

northerly to a gravity sewer on Raymond Looking north from East St. North Pump Station
Avenue.
the East Street North Pump Station would be conveyed by new 8-inch gravity sewers northerly
along East Street to an existing sewer on Raymond Avenue, near the intersection with East Street.
Raymond Avenue is a part of the Harvest Valley Condominiums property. The total length of new

sewers required is approximately 600 feet. The estimated cost of the pump station elimination
work under this alternative is $305,000.
4.3.6.4 Pomeroy Meadow Road Pump Station
The Pomeroy Meadow Road Pump Station is a

submersible pumping facility that was constructed
in 1975. This pump station is located on Pomeroy
Meadow Road, near the intersection with Loudville
Road, Glendale Street and West Street (four-way
intersection). The Pomeroy Meadow Road Pump
Station serves only a few homes southwest of the
pump station and northeast of the Manhan River. Pomeroy Meadow Rd. Pump Station Site
Wastewater flow entering the pump station is
discharged through a 4-inch force main northeasterly to a gravity sewer on West Street.
This pump station is of concern because the wetwell is in the southwesterly travel lane on
Pomeroy Meadow Road, making access to this structure for pump maintenance
difficult/dangerous.
Alternative 1 - Convey the wastewater flow to a gravity sewer on West Street.
Alternative 2 – Convey the wastewater flow to a gravity sewer on Glendale Street.
the Pomeroy Meadow Road Pump Station would be conveyed by new 8-inch gravity sewers
northeasterly on Pomeroy Meadow Road and then southeasterly along Glendale Street to an
existing sewer adjacent to the Manhan River (the beginning of the Manhan River Interceptor).
The total length of new sewers required is approximately 1,100 feet. The estimated cost of the
pump station elimination work under this alternative is $680,000.
Note that because there are only a few homes that would be connected to this sewer, and this
sewer would need to be constructed at a shallow slope, there is a greater potential for solids to

settle within this pipe. As such, greater maintenance (more frequent cleaning) than is typical may
be required.
If the City does not move forward with elimination of the Pomeroy Meadow Road Pump Station,
we recommend that the City consider relocating the pump station to a location that will allow safer
maintenance. As noted previously, the wetwell is in the southwesterly travel lane on Pomeroy
Meadow Road, making access to this structure for pump maintenance difficult/dangerous.
We estimate that the cost to relocate the pump station will range from $100,000 to $150,000,
depending on the location of the new pump station site. This cost includes a new wetwell, new
gravity sewer and force main piping, new electrical conduit and wire, relocation of the control
panel, demolition of the existing wetwell, and a 30% contingency. This cost estimate does not
include the purchase of land to accommodate the pump station on Pomeroy Meadow Road.
4.3.6.5 Pump Station Elimination Summary
We determined that elimination of the Lownds Avenue, Ballard Street, East Street North and
Pomeroy Meadow Road Pump Stations appears feasible, based on this preliminary assessment.
The estimated capital cost for each pump station elimination is presented below in Table 4-12:
Table 4-12
Pump Station Elimination Capital Costs
Pump Station Capital Cost1

Lownds Ave. $608,000
Ballard St. $570,000
East St. North $305,000
Pomeroy Meadow Rd. $680,000
TOTAL $2,163,000
1Includesthe cost of constructing new gravity sewers, the cost of demolishing the existing pump stations,
engineering, and a construction contingency.
If the City decides to pursue elimination of these pump stations, a detailed design is recommended
to confirm the feasibility of their elimination and the construction costs. The detailed design would
include:

• Determining the location and size of existing utilities along the route of the new sewers,
including especially utility crossings that might impact the vertical layout of the new
sewers.
• Identifying an appropriate corridor for the new sewers.
• Determining soil and groundwater conditions that might impact the cost of constructing the
new sewers.
• Determining permitting requirements.
• Evaluating whether easements can be obtained for the sections of new sewers that would
need to be constructed on private property.
• Obtaining permission to connect to any privately owned sewers.
4.3.7 Recommended Pump Station Improvements
The recommended improvements at Easthampton’s wastewater pump stations to preserve and

extend the life of the City’s existing assets and maintain reliable service over the next 20 years
and beyond are summarized below in Table 4-13. The recommended improvements are driven
by the need to replace aging equipment and facilities, and reduce energy costs. In addition,
improvements were considered to reduce operation and maintenance costs.
Table 4-13
Wastewater Pump Stations Recommendations Summary
Item Recommendation
Staffing No additional staff are needed
Energy Lovefield St. Pump Station – Replace one pump with a jockey pump
Daley Field Pump Station – Install programmable thermostat1
Pump Station Elimination Replace the Ballard St., East St. North, Lownds Ave., and Pomeroy
Meadow Rd. Pump Stations with gravity sewers
Condition Assessment Address deficiencies in accordance with prioritization table
1The costs of these improvements are included in the condition assessment costs.

Table 4-14
Costs of Recommended Improvements
Total
1
Items Improvement Improvement2
Identified Through Condition Assessment $3,026,900 $1,490,600 $4,517,500
Liberty St. Pump Station Replacement $549,000 $0 $549,000
Pump Station Elimination $2,163,000 $0 $2,163,000
TOTAL $5,738,900 $1,490,600 $7,229,500

1Recommended within the next 5 years,
4These are Engineer's Opinions of Probable Construction Cost. The Engineer has no control over the cost or
pricing, and the opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Engineer’s professional
judgment and experience. The Engineer makes no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, that the cost
4.4 COLLECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION
This report sub-section includes a summary of the field investigations and evaluations performed
to predict improvements that are expected to be needed within the City’s wastewater collection
system over the next 20 years. The recommended improvements are driven by the need to
replace aging infrastructure, reduce infiltration/inflow in the wastewater collection system, and
comply with regulatory requirements (e.g., prevent sanitary sewer overflows from occurring).
4.4.1 Background
4.4.1.1 Collection System Description
The City of Easthampton is served by a separate sanitary sewer system consisting of

approximately 82 miles of mainline gravity sewers and 6 miles of pump station force mains and
low pressure sewers. The sewers in the collection system range in diameter from 2-inch low

pressure sewers to 36-inch interceptor sewers; the majority of the sewers in the collection system
are 8-inch diameter (72%).
There are several major interceptors in the City, which are described in Table 4-15. These
interceptors are shown on the sewer system map labeled Figure A-1 in the Wastewater Collection
System Evaluation Technical Memorandum in Appendix N.
Table 4-15
Summary of Major Interceptors
Length Dia. Year

Name Age Comments
(ft.) (in.) Constructed
New Railroad Interceptor 5,500 21-36 1969 49 Main gravity sewer to WWTF
Old Railroad Interceptor 13,400 8-18 varies 50->100 Parallel to New RR
Interceptor
Parsons St. Sewer 7,400 8-12 1903-1906 112-115 Tributary to New RR
Interceptor – a portion runs
along Brickyard Brook
White Brook Interceptor 7,100 14-24 1977 41 Main sewer to Daily Field
Pump Station
Broad Brook Interceptor 4,100 8-10 1973-1974 44-45 Main sewer to Hendrick St.
Pump Station
Manhan River Interceptor 12,600 12-24 1972 46 Main sewer to Lovefield St.
Pump Station
Hannum Brook 1,100 12-16 unknown <46 Tributary to Manhan River
Interceptor Interceptor
There are 18 municipal wastewater pump stations within the City’s wastewater collection system.
All of the wastewater flow discharged to the City’s wastewater collection system is transported to
the City’s wastewater treatment facility located at the end of Gosselin Drive and adjacent to the
Manhan River.
4.4.1.2 Collection System Age
Collection system age is summarized below in Table 4-16.

Table 4-16
Collection System Age
Year Built Approximate Sewer Age (yrs) Percent by Length

Between 1890 and 1920 98-128 26
Between 1921 and 1950 68-97 12
Between 1951 and 1980 38-67 42
Between 1981 and 2016 ≤37 20
TOTAL 100
The sewers built prior to 1950 were constructed primarily with vitrified clay (VC) pipes that are
more susceptible to infiltration than newer pipes because of their short lengths (i.e. there are a
greater number of joints) and the pipe connection methods used at that time. VC pipes were
constructed without gasketed joints, in contrast to modern pipe construction that includes
gasketed joints to minimize infiltration.
FIGURE 4-1
Sewer system age was determined based on When Wastewater Collection System was Built
existing mapping provided by the City and 20%
26%
estimated based on pipe materials in areas
adjacent to where sewer age is known. The
sewer system map labeled Figure A-2 in the 12%
Wastewater Collection System Evaluation 42%
Technical Memorandum in Appendix N

1890-1920 1921-1950 1951-1980 1981-2016
presents sewer age by neighborhood
throughout the City. The sewer system map illustrates that the oldest portion of the City’s sewer
system is in the “downtown” area, which includes Main Street, Union Street, Cottage Street
Holyoke Street and adjacent neighborhoods.
Assuming a 75-year service life for a typical sewer (the mid-point of the typical range of 50 to 100
years), the City would need to replace or rehabilitate the sewers installed in the City prior to 1950
over the next 20 years (approximately 177,000 feet of sewer main).

4.4.2 Staffing Analysis
A staffing analysis was performed for the operation and maintenance of the wastewater collection
system using:
1. The document entitled “Guide for Evaluating Capacity, Management, Operation and
Maintenance (CMOM) Programs at Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems”, prepared by the
EPA and dated January 2005.
2. The document entitled “Manpower Requirements for Wastewater Collection Systems in

Cities and Towns up to 150,000 in Population” (MRWCS), prepared by the EPA, and dated
June 1973.
Wastewater collection system maintenance staff currently consist of the following personnel:
1- Utility Department Supervisor (T3 license)
1- Foreman
2- Equipment Operators
2- Craftsmen
The sewer maintenance staff are also responsible for maintenance of the stormwater system.
The foreman, equipment operators and craftsmen have hoisting licenses. In addition, two
wastewater collection system staff members have a Class B license and one staff member has a
Class A license.
Based on the estimated sewered population of 15,800 people and the guidance documents noted
above, we estimate that six staff members are needed to maintain the City’s wastewater and
stormwater collection systems. In comparison, the City has six staff devoted to operating and
maintaining its wastewater and stormwater collection systems. Based on input from the City
regarding staffing adequacy and the staffing analysis, the number of staff in place to operate and
maintain the collection systems was determined to be appropriate.

4.4.3 Field Investigations
Field investigations were performed to collect information on the condition of the wastewater
collection system and to locate sources of infiltration and inflow in the collection system. The field
investigations included:
• Flow isolation gauging (36,800± feet)
• Sewer television inspections (16,200± feet)
• Manhole inspections (166 manholes)
• Dyed water testing (36 locations)
• Dyed water flooding (6 locations)
Wastewater flow isolation gauging, sewer television inspections, and manhole inspections were
performed in an effort to locate infiltration in areas identified in prior studies or by City staff as
either having high infiltration or suspected of having high infiltration. The areas targeted for
infiltration investigations included the Clark Street area, the eastern end of East Street (the Mount
Tom Pump Station service area), and the Oliver Street area, as shown in Figures 3-1, 3-2 and 3-
3, included in the Wastewater Collection System Evaluation Technical Memorandum in Appendix
N. Sewer television inspections were also performed in other areas to assess the condition of
sewer mains identified by the City as being of concern. Dyed water testing and dyed water
flooding were performed to determine whether inflow sources located in a prior study (1991
SSES) have been disconnected from the sewer system and to perform follow-up inflow
investigations in accordance with the 1991 SSES recommendations.
A description of the field investigation tasks and the investigation results are described in the
paragraphs that follow.
4.4.3.1 Infiltration and Inflow
Investigations were performed during this evaluation in an effort to:
1. Locate infiltration in areas identified in a prior study (1991 SSES) as being of concern
and/or in areas identified by the City as being of concern.

2. Determine whether inflow sources located in a prior study (1991 SSES) were
disconnected from the sewer system.
3. Perform follow up inflow investigations in accordance with the 1991 SSES

recommendations.
Infiltration
A total of approximately 113,700 gpd of
infiltration was measured through flow isolation
gauging and estimated through manhole
inspections. In addition, infiltration was
observed, but not quantified, within the sewers
on O’Neill Street, Maple Street, Pine Street,
Union Street and in the White Brook Interceptor
through the sewer television inspections. Signs
of prior infiltration (mineral deposits) were also
observed on the following streets:
Infiltration in sewer on Underwood Ave.
• Cherry St. • Franklin St. • Pine St.
• Chestnut St. • Maple St. • Union St.
• Clark St. • Oliver St. • White Brook Interceptor
Infiltration was determined to be most significant on the following streets:
• Cherry St. • O’Neill St. • Underwood Ave.

• Clark St. • Pine St. • Union St.
• Oliver St.
Inflow
A total of 44,700 gpd of inflow during a 1-year, 6-hour design storm was measured from seven
inflow sources on private property (5 roof drains/leaders and 2 sump pumps), as shown below in
Table 4-17.

Table 4-17
Estimated Inflow From Sources Identified – Dyed Water Testing
Inflow Drainage Area Estimated Inflow

Location
Source (SF) Rate (gpd)
65 Cottage St. (Brass Cat) Roof Drain 450 5,2001
76 Garfield Ave. Roof Leaders 180 2,1001
125-151 LaPlante Circle Sump Pump --- 6,5002
216 Main St. Roof Leaders 300 3,5001
38 Union St. (Peter Rapid Cleaners) Sump Pump --- 6,5002
19 Ward Ave. (Philips Manufacturing Co.) Rood Drains 1,000 11,6001
27 Westview Ter. Roof Leaders 800 9,3001
TOTAL 44,700
1Calculated using the Rational Formula based on the actual drainage area size, the 1-year, 6-hour design storm
peak rainfall intensity of 0.87 inches/hour and a runoff coefficient of 0.90.
2Based on data published in the document entitled Guidelines for Performing Infiltration/Inflow Analyses and Sewer
System Evaluation Surveys, prepared by the MassDEP, dated May 2017.
In addition, two cross-connections between the sanitary sewer system and the storm drainage
system were identified through dyed water testing of several suspect cross-connections, as
shown in Table 4-18.

Table 4-18
Cross Connection/Dyed Water Flooding Investigations
Between Connected to
No. of
Location Sewer MH Sewer System
Investigations1
Nos. (Y/N)
Center St. at Railroad St.2 612 1 Y
Garfield Ave. 800-801 1 N
Hill Ave. 528-529 1 N
Hill Ave. 529-526 1 N
Pleasant Green East 1918-1907 1 N
Summer St. 740-745 1 Y
Summer St. at Pleasant St. 740-745 1 N
TOTAL 7 2
1Dyed water flooding was performed at each location, unless noted otherwise.
2Based on an inspection of the sewer and drain manholes at the Railroad St./Center St. intersection, a cross
connection was identified (an overflow pipe that was installed between a sewer manhole and a drain manhole).
A dye test was determined to be unnecessary at this location.
A potential cross-connection between the sanitary sewer system and the storm drainage system
was investigated by Tighe & Bond, with the assistance of City staff, at the intersection of Center
Street and Railroad Street. An overflow pipe was identified between a sanitary sewer manhole
and an adjacent drain manhole at this intersection. During a large storm, there is the potential
that drainage could overflow into the sewer system. The City has since plugged this overflow
pipe.
Through dyed water flooding of a drain line on Summer Street, a cross connection between the
sanitary sewer and the storm drain was identified on this street. We recommend that this test be
repeated while a television camera is in the sewer line so that the exact location and means
through which the dyed water enters the sewer can be determined.
The amount of inflow that reaches the sewer system through these cross-connections during a
particular storm is difficult to quantify without performing detailed drainage system modeling since
the inflow amount depends on the amount of flow in the drain lines and whether surcharging is
occurring.

4.4.3.2 Condition Assessment
Structural defects were observed within many of the

sewers and manholes inspected and, in some cases,
were significant. These defects include cracked pipe,
pipe with holes in them, broken pipe, partially
collapsed pipe, cracked/broken manhole covers,
deteriorated manhole rungs, and deteriorated
concrete/mortar within manholes. Structural defects
were of greatest concern within the sewers on Cherry
Street, East Green Street, Mayher Street, Underwood
Collapsed Sewer on Cherry St.
Avenue and Union Street.
Based on sewer television inspections performed previously by the City, we also observed that
significant structural concerns were identified within the Brickyard Brook sewer, and the sewers
on Holyoke Street and Parsons Street.
Detailed information on the structural defects observed is included in the Wastewater Collection
System Evaluation Technical Memorandum included in Appendix N.
4.4.3.3 Maintenance Concerns
Maintenance concerns were identified within

some of the sewer mains and manholes
inspected, including roots, grease, accumulated
sediment, and other debris. In addition, settled
solids and roots were observed within the
sewers television inspected previously. Root
balls were observed within the sewers on
Franklin Street, Pine Street, and Underwood
Avenue.
Heavy Roots in Sewer on Cherry St.

Detailed information on the maintenance
concerns observed is included in the Wastewater Collection System Evaluation Technical
Memorandum included in Appendix N.

4.4.3.4 Manholes of Special Concern
Manholes where items of special concern were identified are listed in Table 4-19. Photographs
of these manholes are included in the Wastewater Collection System Evaluation Technical
Memorandum in Appendix N.
Table 4-19
Manholes With Items of Special Concern
MH Reference
Location No. Description
Oliver St./Deerfield St. ≤1-inch diameter metal pipe enters manhole

106
intersection through wall
Holyoke St./Allen St. ≤1-inch diameter plastic pipe enters manhole
1157
intersection through wall
Cherry St. 1234 Capped pipe through manhole shelf
Cherry St. 1236 Capped pipe through manhole shelf
3-inch diameter valved metal pipe enters
Mt. Tom Ave. 1238
manhole through wall
1± inch diameter metal pipe enters manhole
East St. near East Maple St. 1436
through wall, ends with tee at invert
1± inch diameter valved metal pipe enters
East St. near Wilder Ave. 1490
1± inch diameter valved metal pipe enters
Elliot St., near East Green St. 1519
We recommend that the City review the above manholes in greater detail to investigate the pipes
entering these manholes.
4.4.4 Improvements Assessment
4.4.4.1 Overview
The need for wastewater collection system improvements over the next 20 years was assessed
based on:
• The age of the sewers and manholes, determined based on the mapping information
provided by the City

• The condition of the piping and manholes within the collection system, determined through
a review of prior sewer television inspections, and the manhole and television inspections
performed through this evaluation
• The presence of infiltration and inflow in the wastewater collection system, determined
through the field investigations performed in this study
• Compliance with regulatory requirements, such as reducing the potential for sanitary
sewer overflows to occur
It is important to note that the collection system assessment is based on limited information on
the condition of the sewers and manholes in Easthampton’s wastewater collection system
because it was not affordable to inspect every sewer segment and manhole in the wastewater
collection system as part of this evaluation. Approximately 41,000 feet or 9% of the total length
of gravity sewers in the City’s wastewater collection system were reviewed as part of this
evaluation. In addition, 166 manholes were reviewed as part of this evaluation or 8% of the total
number of manholes in the sewer system. This inspection data, in conjunction with sewer age
information, was used to estimate the needs of the entire wastewater collection system over the
next 20 years. In addition, the need for further wastewater collection system investigations was
assessed as part of this evaluation.
4.4.4.2 Evaluation Criteria
As noted above, wastewater collection system improvements were prioritized based on condition,
age, the presence of I/I, and regulatory concerns, as described below:
• Age – Older components were given a higher priority than newer components, including
especially components that have exceeded their expected service life.
• Condition – Components in poor condition were given a higher priority.
• I/I – Sewer system improvements that would eliminate a greater amount of I/I were given
a higher priority than improvements that would eliminate a smaller amount of I/I.
• Regulatory Concerns – Sewer system improvements that are needed to reduce the
potential for regulatory violations (e.g., sanitary sewer overflows) were given a higher
priority.

As discussed earlier in this report, the service life of a sewer can vary depending on the pipe
material, jointing system, soil conditions, and the characteristics of the wastewater flow. The
expected service life of a sanitary sewer is typically reported to be in the range of 50 to 100 years.
Wastewater collection system components that were identified as having deficiencies or concerns
were placed into one of the following action categories:
condition, importance, and the potential for regulatory violations if they are not addressed.
Category A - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 5 or fewer years (repair or
replacement is expected to be necessary during this period) or would eliminate a source of
excessive I/I.
Category B - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 6 to 10 years (repair or
replacement is expected to be necessary during this period) or would eliminate a source of
moderate I/I.
Category C - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 11 to 20 years (repair or
replacement is expected to be necessary during this period).
4.4.4.3 Rehabilitation Methods and Costs
Where deficiencies were identified, the rehabilitation methods were selected based on the type
of deficiency and the number of nearby deficiencies within the same sewer reach under review.
The rehabilitation methods considered and their associated service lives are summarized below
in Table 4-20.

Table 4-20
Sewer System Rehabilitation Methods
Rehabilitation Method Estimated Service Life (years)

Pipe Rehabilitation
Pipe air testing and chemical sealing1 15
Cured-in-place pipe lining (along the entire sewer reach, from 50
manhole to manhole)2
Short liner (assumed to be approximately 3 to 4 feet long) 50
Spot repairs (dig and replace) 50
Pipe replacement (dig and replace)3 50
Manhole Rehabilitation
Manhole chemical sealing/coating4 15/30
Manhole chimney replacement 50
Manhole frame and cover replacement 50
Manhole replacement 50
1Includes pipe cleaning, TV inspection, testing, grouting and cutting protruding services where they protrude
greater than the expected diameter of the testing and sealing equipment.
2Because of concerns that infiltration can enter lined pipes at re-instated service connections, grouting at each
active service connection has been included in the lining rehabilitation cost.
3Includes replacement of the main and the active services from the main to the property line.
4The rehabilitation costs are based on sealing the exterior of the manholes with a chemical grout, providing an
interior cementitious coating in the manholes (including the inverts), and installing a flexible joint sealant from
the frame to 1 foot below the frame.
Budgetary opinions of probable cost were developed for the recommended improvements
developed through this assessment. These budgetary costs have been developed to assist the
City in developing future capital improvement budgets. The planning level budgetary costs are
Class 4 estimates, as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
(AACE) International Recommended Practices and Standards. According to AACE International
Recommended Practices and Standards, the estimate class designators are labeled Class 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5, where a Class 5 estimate is based on the lowest level of project definition and a Class
1 estimate is closest to full project definition and maturity. The end usage for a Class 4 estimate
is a project study. The expected accuracy range of a Class 4 estimate is between +50% to -30%.
The budgetary costs are based on the November 2017 ENR 20-City National Average
Construction Cost Index of 10,870.
Budgetary costs include construction costs and engineering costs, which were estimated as 20%
of the construction costs. The construction costs include material costs, installation costs,
demolition costs (where appropriate), general conditions costs, the contractor's overhead and

profit, and a 30% contingency. Note that costs associated with hazardous materials abatement
were not included.
If, and when, the City decides to proceed with a recommended improvement, we recommend that
a more detailed assessment of the improvement be performed so that the recommendation and
associated budgetary cost can be refined.
The sewer system improvements recommended are summarized below in Table 4-21:
Table 4-21
Sewer System Improvements Based on Field Investigations
Type of Rehabilitation Quantity to be No. of Sewer Segments or Capital Cost of

Recommended Rehabilitated (ft.) MHs to be Rehabilitated Rehabilitation
Sewer Mains
Test & Seal Joints 1,743 9 $30,100
Cured-In-Place Liner 10,030 41 $1,291,100
Short Liner 1,195 5 $17,600
Spot Repairs 0 0 $0
Replacement 896 3 $452,900
SUBTOTAL 13,864 58 $1,791,700
Manholes
Interior & Exterior Sealing 435 42 $179,400
Chimney Replacement --- 3 $9,300
Frame and Cover
--- 3 $3,600
Replacement
SUBTOTAL $192,300
TOTAL $1,984,000
4.4.4.4 Additional Investigations
During dyed water flooding, a cross connection between the sanitary sewer system and the storm
drainage system was identified on Summer Street. We recommend that this test be repeated
while a television camera is in the sewer line so that the exact location and means through which
the dyed water entered the sewer can be determined.

Approximately 25% of the City’s sewer system is over 100 years old and approximately 40% of
the sewer system is over 70 years old. In comparison, the expected service life of a sewer pipe
is typically reported to be in the range of 50 to 100 years. As such, we anticipate that sewer
system improvements will be needed over the next 20 years beyond those improvements
recommended in Table 4-21 above, which are based on the field investigations performed in this
evaluation.
The actual service life of a specific sewer segment can vary depending on several factors,
including pipe material, jointing system, soil conditions, and the characteristics of the wastewater
flow. As such, we recommend that the City establish a program to continue to assess its sewer
system through:
4. Television inspections
5. Manhole inspections
6. The development of rehabilitation recommendations that can be included in the City’s

future capital improvements plans
We recommend that this program be developed to first focus on the more critical sewer system
assets (i.e., interceptors and major trunk sewers) and the older sections of the sewer system. In
order to inspect the sewer mains that are over 100 years old over the next 10 years, approximately
12,000 feet of sewer would need to be inspected yearly. We recommend that the manholes within
the sewer segments inspected be reviewed concurrently. We estimate that for every 12,000 feet
of sewer main inspected, approximately 50 manholes would need to be inspected. The estimated
cost of the annual television and manhole inspections is presented in Table 4-22, below.
Table 4-22
Estimated Cost of Annual Sewer and Manhole Inspections
Task Quantity Cost1

Sub-contractor mobilization --- $1,000
TV Inspections 12,000 ft. $24,000
Manhole Inspections 50 MHs $5,000
Sub-contractor data reduction & report --- $4,000
Traffic Control 8 days $3,200
TOTAL $37,200
1Costs assumes that City staff will evaluate the data in order to determine the need for improvements.

In addition, we recommend that the City investigate the piping of unknown origin listed in Table
4-19.
4.4.4.5 Wastewater Collection System Maintenance
Sediment accumulation, roots, grease and other debris were observed throughout the sewer
system during the sewer main and manhole inspections. We recommend that these sewer lines
and manholes be cleaned in order to restore the hydraulic capacity of the sewer mains and
minimize the potential for sewage backups and sanitary sewer overflows to occur.
The City indicated that they have the following equipment that is used for maintenance of the
wastewater collection system:
• Trailer-mounted water jetting equipment

• Trailer-mounted vacuum cleaning equipment
• Catch basin cleaner (clamshell mounted on truck)
• Rodding machine
• Excavator
• Backhoe
• Skid steer
• 1-ton dump truck
• 5-ton dump truck
• ¾ ton pickup truck
• Box truck
The catch basin cleaning truck was purchased in 1995 (23 years old) and the trailer-mounted
vacuum cleaning equipment was purchased in 2002 (16 years old), which are beyond the
expected service life of this equipment. The trailer-mounted water jetting/flushing equipment was
purchased in 2013 (5 years old). In addition, the trailer-mounted vacuum cleaning equipment and
the trailer-mounted water jetting equipment are in poor condition.
As such, we recommend that the City consider replacing the trailer-mounted water jetting/flushing
equipment, the trailer-mounted vacuum cleaning equipment, and the catch basin cleaning truck.
A combination vehicle that would perform all of these functions is estimated to cost $325,000.

In addition, the City may wish to consider the purchase of a television inspection vehicle to
facilitate the inspection of its sewer and drain lines. Currently, the City pays a sub-contractor to
perform this service, when needed. The estimated cost of a television inspection vehicle is
$225,000.
4.4.5 Recommended Wastewater Collection System Improvements
The recommended improvements and other actions within the City’s wastewater collection
system to preserve and extend the life of the City’s existing assets and maintain reliable service
over the next 20 years and beyond are summarized below in Table 4-23. The recommended
improvements are driven by the need to replace aging infrastructure and infrastructure with
condition concerns, remove I/I, and reduce the risk of SSOs occurring. These improvements are
also likely to reduce operation and maintenance costs.
Table 4-23
WWTF Recommendations Summary
Item Recommendation
Staffing No additional staff are needed
Wastewater Collection System Improvements Address deficiencies identified through field
investigations
Additional Investigations Inspect portions of the sewer system over 100 years
old over the next 10 years
Perform follow up investigation of Summer St. cross
connection
Wastewater Collection System Maintenance Address maintenance concerns identified
Purchase collection system cleaning truck
Consider purchase of TV inspection truck

Table 4-24
Costs of Recommended Wastewater Collection System Improvements
Total
Items Improvement1 Improvement2
Rehabilitation
Sewer main rehabilitation $1,046,400 $745,300 $1,791,700
Manhole rehabilitation $47,500 $144,800 $192,300
Additional Investigations
Dyed water tracing $3,000 $0 $3,000
Sewer/manhole inspections $190,000 $190,000 $380,000
Wastewater Collection System Maintenance
Pipe/structure cleaning vehicle $325,000 $0 $325,000
Television inspection vehicle $225,000 $0 $225,000
TOTAL $1,836,900 $1,080,100 $2,917,000

1Recommended within the next 5 years,
4These are Engineer's Opinions of Probable Construction Cost. Tighe & Bond has no control over the cost or
pricing, and the opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of Tighe & Bond’s professional
judgment and experience. Tighe & Bond makes no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, that the cost

5 DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Easthampton owns, operates and maintains a drinking water system containing the
following water infrastructure:
1. A water treatment facility
2. One well field
3. Four wells
4. 3 storage tanks
5. A water distribution system
One objective of this evaluation was to identify the improvements expected to be needed over the
next 20 years to Easthampton’s water infrastructure. The report sections that follow summarize
the drivers for water evaluations, the investigations performed as part of this project to identify
where improvements are needed, and the recommendations for water improvements or additional
evaluation.
More detailed descriptions of the water evaluations performed are presented in the technical
memoranda described below and are included in Appendices to this report.
• Drinking Water Evaluation Report, prepared by Kleinfelder, dated May 2017, included in
Appendix O.
A map of the drinking water system is included as Appendix P.
5.2 PROJECT DRIVERS
There are a few key drivers impacting the condition and effectiveness of the water system assets:
• Age of infrastructure
• Water production capability
• Treatment capacity
• Fire flow capacity
• Water age

5.2.1 Aging Equipment/Facilities
A large portion of the water facilities are relatively recent construction, with several facilities built
in 1995. Other structures or associated wells date much earlier. While many of the structures
remain in good condition, the age of equipment and electronics can be of greater concern. The
condition of equipment from both a maintainability and reliability standpoint was assessed. The
expected service life of equipment was also factored into the evaluation through the 20-year
planning period of this evaluation. This report identifies needs that are present today, as well as
those anticipated to arise within the planning period of this project.
5.2.2 Energy Efficiency
The age of equipment can have an impact on the efficiency of its energy usage. Components of
older equipment can wear and become less efficient over time. Also, new technology can improve
efficiency beyond what was possible at the date of installation. Degraded energy efficiency
corresponds to higher annual operating costs for the life of the equipment. The cost of energy
efficiency improvements can often be recovered through lower operating costs. The current
energy efficiency of Easthampton water assets, particularly high horsepower components like
pumps, were assessed against present-day design standards as part of this evaluation.
5.2.3 Water Production Capability
Perhaps the most important metric when assessing water supply infrastructure is its ability to
reliably deliver water meeting drinking water standards to the public. Production capacity of
Easthampton’s water distribution system was evaluated by comparing current production rates
against (1) design production rates, (2) approved safe yield, and (3) water system demands with
different wells out of service, including the highest capacity well. The ability for City operations
staff to rely on a designated production rate from a source, and to do so without undue
maintenance burden, was also considered. These factors formed the basis of needs identified
that are associated with well or treatment facility production.
5.2.4 Treatment Capacity
Easthampton has access to ground water with very high quality; however, treatment of two of the
sources is required to remove trichloroethylene (TCE), an industrial solvent contaminant. A third
well is not generally used due to elevated iron and manganese concentrations in the water. The

reliable capacity of the water system to treat these existing and other possible emerging
contaminants was examined.
5.2.5 Fire Flow Capacity
Adequate fire flow supply and pressure during a fire is critical to public safety. A hydraulic model
of Easthampton’s water distribution system was updated and used to evaluate the adequacy of
fire flows throughout the City during current and future estimated peak flow events. Fire flow is a
critical parameter in the distribution system that was also used to evaluate the ability of the system
to provide drinking water to other communities, and to examine operational alternatives.
5.2.6 Water Age
Another critical parameter in the water distribution system is the water age. Water age is related
to water quality in that the longer the water is sitting in any one location the more likely bacteria
can grow. The hydraulic model was used to evaluate the water age throughout the system and
to evaluate alternatives for reducing the water age.
5.3 WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
5.3.1 Hendrick Street Facilities
The City operates multiple water system assets at its 109 Hendrick Street site:
• Treatment Facility and Office
• Storage Facilities
• Low Lift Pump Station and Tubular Wellfield
• Pines Pump Station
The Hendrick Street Low Lift Pump Station and Pines Pump Station each supply water to the
packed tower air stripping treatment system at the Treatment Facility and Office. The treated
water is dosed with chlorine and pumped from the treatment facility into the distribution system.
Additional structures on the site are currently used for storage. The layout of the Hendrick Street
site is shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1
Hendrick Street Site
5.3.1.1 Hendrick Street Well Field
The Hendrick Street Well Field is a tubular wellfield containing over 100 wells manifolded together
that dates to 1908. Maintenance of tubular wells requires dewatering and pumping of the rest of
the wellfield. However, there is limited information available about the condition or exact location
of the wells, so effective maintenance and repair of the wellfield is virtually impossible due to a
lack of available information. Reports and vintage photos indicate the wells are artesian at this
site.
The wellfield is rated for 2,800 gallons per minute (gpm), but it is not providing its approved yield.
The yield from the wells has reportedly decreased over time and is currently producing
approximately 1,000 gpm with one pump operational and 1,400 gpm with two pumps operational.

Water is pumped to the treatment facility
aeration tower with one of three 20 hp
vertical turbine low lift pumps that pump
from a common header.
The suction pipe to the lift station is

asbestos cement reportedly installed
during the 1950s.
Hendrick Street Tubular Wellfield

Process instrumentation does not
include digital pressure or flow instrumentation. The SCADA panel and hardware is original to
facility construction and has exceeded its design life.
5.3.1.2 Pines Well and Pump Station
The Pines Well was constructed in 1961. A

below-grade Venturi flow meter dates to the
original well construction in 1961. The well has
not been cleaned or otherwise serviced since
activated.
The Pines Pump Station Building was replaced

in 2003. It is a pre-engineered concrete
structure mounted on a concrete slab. The
building houses the Pines Well 25 hp low-lift
pump, which reliably supplies 750 gpm of Pines Pump Station
water from the well to the Hendrick Street

Treatment Facility.
The SCADA connection to treatment facility is via fiber optic cable. There is no site fencing around
the facility, nor is there an intrusion alarm in the building.

5.3.1.3 Hendrick Street Low Lift Station
The Hendrick Street Low Lift Station, located

adjacent to the Cold Storage Building, is a masonry
structure that houses the low lift pumps that transfer
water from the Hendrick Street tubular wellfield to
the Hendrick Street Treatment Facility. It was
constructed in 1995.
Electricity to the facility is served from a main motor

control center that is fed underground from the main Hendrick Street Low Lift Pump Station
motor control center and switchboard in the Hendrick
Street Treatment Facility. The motor control center serves the pumps (via variable frequency
drives), a 10kVA dry-type transformer, and the building mechanical loads.
5.3.1.4 Treatment Facility Building and Office
The Hendrick Street Water

Treatment Facility and Main Office
building is a 7,800 square foot
masonry structure that was built in
1995. The building houses Water
and Engineering staff offices and a
garage for the Water Department
equipment. This is the primary
manned facility in the
Easthampton water system.
Hendrick Street Treatment Facility and Office
Office space is limited in the

building, with multiple desks in the control room and a desk
located in the laboratory. A bench on the side of the garage is
currently used for lunch breaks as the existing structure does
not provide a break room for City staff.
Staff break and lunch

A fabric-covered, galvanized steel-frame temporary structure was installed in December 2015 to
provide some protection to City vehicles parked outside.
There is a standby natural gas generator to provide power to the building and treatment process
during power outages.
5.3.1.5 Water Treatment Process and Equipment
The water process infrastructure at this facility generally dates to the

facility commissioning in 1995. A packed tower air stripping system
treats all water from the Hendrick Street and Pines Wells sources to
remove trichloroethylene (TCE) present in the groundwater. The air
stripper is rated for 4 million gallons per day (MGD) and relies on a
single 7.5 constant speed blower to supply air to the process.
Observed levels of TCE are reported to have decreased from 5-6 µg/L
to current levels (approximately 3 µg/L) over the past several years.
After the air stripping process to remove the TCE a very small quantity
(approximately 0.3 lbs/day) of chlorine gas is added to achieve low
Air Stripping Tower
finished water residuals (0.1 mg/L). At the low consumption rate, a
single standard cylinder will last for months between change-outs.
Chlorine gas is toxic and the infrequent chemical handling by operators
presents a risk of safety lapses when chlorine gas tanks are handled.
Three 75 hp verticle turbine finished water pumps, located in the main

Hendrick Street Building, pump the water from a clearwell downstream
of the treatment processes to the distribution system. The finished flow
is measured by an orifice plate meter.
The supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system utilizes

Allen-Bradley hardware and Intellution Human Machine Interface (HMI)
software. The SCADA software currently utilized is 1995 vintage and
no longer meets modern industry standards. The SCADA Chlorine Gas Cylinder
communication connections to remote stations are by fiber optic to
Hendrick Street Low Lift Pump Station and Pines Pump Station, and by
leased phone line to the water storage tanks and Brook Street, Nonotuck, and Maloney wells.

5.3.1.6 Hendrick Street Storage
There are two storage buildings at the Hendrick Street site. The Hendrick Street Cold Storage
Building was constructed in 1908 and was originally used as the City’s primary water source. The
building is now an unheated, unpowered storage facility. A small shed located behind the Cold
Storage Building is used for storage
of water system fittings and other
supplies. Both the building and the
shed are located in the Zone I of the
Hendrick Street Wellfield.
The Cold Storage Building appears
to have had little maintenace in
recent years. There are many signs
of aging and deterioration of the
facility, including extensive
deterioration of the wooden 1908 Storage Building
personnel and garage doors.
5.3.2 Well Facilities
The three other drinking supply wells other than the wells at the Hendrick Street site (Pines Well
and Hendrick Street Wellfield) are:
• Brook Street (active source)
• Nonotuck (active source)
• Maloney (emergency source)
The water supply from each of these sources is pumped directly into the distribution system. The
Nonotuck well is relied on most heavily. The Maloney well is reserved for emergency use due to
elevated manganese concentrations in the groundwater at that location.
5.3.2.1 Brook Street Pump Station
Building and Site

The Brook Street Pump Station was constructed in 1995. A masonry structure houses the Brook
Street well and high lift pumping equipment. This facility was constructed in 1995. The site is
enclosed by a fence.

Electrical
Electrical service to the facility comes from a
pad-mounted transformer, which provides
power via an underground service that serves
the 300A main switchboard. A propane gas-
powered standby generator is located in the
pump room.
Process Equipment
Brook Street Pump Station
Water is withdrawn from the gravel packed well
via one 125 horsepower pump. The water
process equipment is functioning reliably and meeting its pumping
goals, although occasional reliability problems with the water process
equipment have been reported.
Flow is measured by a Venturi flowmeter. Process instruments include

a turbidimeter, pH meter, and chlorine residual meter, although none
are currently in use. There is a chlorine room that is not currently in use.
SCADA communications to Hendrick Street Treatment Facility is via

landline phone. The SCADA hardware is original to station construction
and at the end of its design life.
Pump and Process

5.3.2.2 Nonotuck Pump Station Pipe
Building and Site

The Nonotuck Pump Station facility
consists of two structures. The first is
the original pump station built in 1963
which houses the original well and
pump. A second precast concrete
building was constructed in 1995 with
a replacement well and pump. There
Nonotuck Pump Station
is also an exterior propane gas-

powered standby generator located at this site inside a weatherproof enclosure. Both buildings
and the standby generator are enclosed by chain link fence.
The 1963 building consists of a concrete roof with CMU walls founded on a concrete foundation
with concrete floor slabs.
Electrical
The 1963 structure provides the connection to the distribution and electrical systems and houses
control equipment. Electrical service is routed to the site through a switchboard in the building.
Process Equipment
The water from this site is excellent quality. The well pump is 125 horsepower, withdrawing from
a gravel packed well. The typical yield is 1,100 gpm. Flow is measured by a Venturi flowmeter
located in the basement of the 1963 structure.
The SCADA communications to the Treatment Facility is via landline phone. SCADA hardware
is original to station renovation and at the end of its design life.
5.3.2.3 Maloney Pump Station
The facility is currently for emergency use only due to iron and manganese concentrations in the
source water that create aesthetic issues for customers. As a result of its emergency-only status,
this source is not typically operated. The equipment is exercised periodically, but otherwise there
has been limited maintenance attention directed to this site.
Building and Site

The Maloney Pump Station facility is a
masonry structure built in 1976 to house the
Maloney well and pumping equipment. The
site is not enclosed by a fence, but there is a
locked gate on the access road.
Electrical
Electrical service to the facility comes from a Maloney Pump Station
utility pole-mounted transformer bank, which

provides power to the facility via underground service to a 400A main circuit breaker. Power
supply problems from the main panel currently limit operations at the facility. A diesel gas-
powered standby generator is located inside the building and has 366 hours of operation logged.
It is original to the building construction in 1976, has exceeded its design life, and is assessed to
be in fair to poor condition.
Process Equipment
The well can provide 1,050 gpm of supply with a 125 horsepower pump, withdrawing from a gravel
packed well. Positive water pressure (artesian) conditions are reported for the site. Flow
monitoring appears to be via a Parco control panel.
SCADA communications to the Hendrick Street Treatment Facility is via landline phone. SCADA
hardware is at the end of its design life.
The process equipment, including pump and motor, are original to the 1976 construction. The
equipment is periodically exercised, but does not operate routinely due to the high manganese
levels in the source water. In order to regularly use this facility, a full overhaul of all process
components would be necessary, including pump, motor, valves, instrumentation, SCADA and
the pipe configuration. Additional upgrades should be anticipated if this source is identified for
routine use. A treatment process for the elevated manganese should be part of an overall re-
activation plan for this site.
5.3.3 Water Storage Tanks
Easthampton has three water storage tanks in its system:

• Drury Lane Tank (active)
• Peaceful Valley Tank (active)
• Mount Tom Tank (inactive)
The Drury Lane and Peaceful Valley tanks are above-ground, concrete reservoir tanks. The
Mount Tom tank is a covered, below-grade tank that is currently out of service because of past
persistence of bacteria and suspected tank leakage.

5.3.3.1 Drury Lane Tank
Building and Site

The Drury Lane tank is a 4.0 million
gallon above-ground concrete
reservoir tank constructed in 1989.
The dome roof rehabilitation work
was completed in 2010.
There is no fence around the tank

site, but there is no access ladder
on the tank. The only indication of
vandalism is minor graffiti on the
Drury Lane Tank
tank.
Electrical
Electrical service to the tank altitude valve vault comes from a street utility pole, leading to a meter
socket and a 100A main enclosed circuit breaker at grade. The service was installed in 1989.
The site does not have a standby generator.
Process
The Drury Lane Tank is not equipped with a
mixing system and has poor turnover,
remaining full due to its hydraulic grade. This
is addressed further in the operational
evaluation described in Section 5-7.
The tank is equipped with an altitude valve

vault with 18-inch gate valves installed at a
skewed angle to fit in the available space. Drury Lane Vault
A pressure signal is relayed to Hendrick Street Treatment Facility via phone line.

5.3.3.2 Peaceful Valley Tank
Building and Site

The Peaceful Valley tank is a 2.0 MG above-
ground concrete reservoir tank constructed in
2001. No fence around tank site, but there is
no access ladder on the tank. No graffiti or
other indication of vandalism noted.
Electrical
Electrical service to the tank altitude valve
vault comes from an access road utility pole,
Peaceful Valley Tank
leading to a meter socket and a 100A main
enclosed circuit breaker at grade. The site does
not have a standby generator.
Water Process
The Peaceful Valley Tank is not equipped with a mixing system, but documentation shows good
turnover. The tank is equipped with an altitude valve vault, and pressure signal is relayed to the
Hendrick Street Treatment Facility via phone line.
5.3.3.3 Mount Tom Tank
The Mount Tom Water Storage Tank is a

1.6 million gallon concrete, below-grade
drinking water storage reservoir. The tank is
the smallest of the three City operated
storage tanks in Easthampton. The Mount
Tom Tank overflow elevation is 15 feet lower
than the Peaceful Valley tank.
The Mount Tom Tank is located at a site on a

slope behind a residential area and is
accessible by a moderately steep dirt road.
Mount Tom Tank
An open-air reservoir was first created in
1905 when a dam was built at the site. The

reservoir was later converted to the current covered concrete tank configuration in 1933. The
total footprint of the tank is approximately 10,500 square feet.
The tank was the subject of a detailed evaluation by Kleinfelder in January 2011 (Appendix O)
following recurring total coliform-positive samples during the summer of 2010, which were
suspected to be originating from the tank. Among other findings, roof leakage was evident, and
the roof hatches are not providing an adequate seal. The tank has remained out of service and
the findings of the 2011 inspection have not changed since that time.
5.3.4 Facilities Condition Assessment
The condition of the Hendrick Street Water Treatment Facility, offices, and pump station,
groundwater well pumping stations, and water storage tanks, were evaluated as part of this
evaluation. Capital improvements expected to be needed at these facilities over the next 20 years
were identified. The following components were considered during the inspection:
• Site/Civil • Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)

• Process/Mechanical • Plumbing
• Structural/Architectural • Instrumentation and Controls
• Electrical • Health and safety
The storage tanks were inspected by the Water Process and Treatment, Structural, and Electrical
discipline representatives. Architectural and HVAC aspects do not apply for those facilities.
The water components inspected that were identified as having deficiencies were placed into one
of the following action categories, based on their age, condition, function and use, and safety/code
considerations:
condition or importance. Items that were safety or code concerns were included in this
category.
Category B - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 6 to 10 years - repair

Category C - Items that have an expected remaining service life of 11 to 20 years - repair
A total of 192 items were identified as requiring improvements over the next 20 years at a capital
cost of $7,360,000. A detailed list of the proposed improvements is included in the Drinking Water
Evaluation Report in Appendix O.
5.3.5 Energy Audit Summary
An energy audit was conducted by JK Muir, LLC, a specialist in performing energy audits, on the
City of Easthampton’s water system facilities. The energy audit identified the largest energy users
and determined where energy-related improvements are most appropriate. The recommended
energy improvement are listed below in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
Summary of Recommended Energy Improvements
Estimated
Recommended Annual Estimated
Item
Improvement Reduction in Cost
Energy Costs
Hendricks WTF Blower Operation $3,183 NA
Brook Street Well Reduce Flow Rate $9,313 NA
Pines Well Pump Replacement $2,499 $21,600
Pines Well Rebuild & VFD Installation $2,587 $20,700
Hendrick WTF High Lift Pump Rebuild $5,640 $45,600
Brook Street Well Pump Replacement $4,461 $42,000
Nonotuck Well Pump Rebuild $6,052 $23,400
Building Systems Lighting & HVAC --1 --
Energy Management & Pump
Efficiency Program -- --
Potential Energy Program Savings $31,236 $131,700

1Cost savings were not determined. We recommend that Eversource be contacted to schedule a site visit
to confirm that lighting fixture and heating / cooling systems will result in cost savings, and to explore funding
assistance opportunities.
5.4 WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS
In this Section the current and future water demands are summarized. The detailed analyses
are described in detail in the Drinking Water Evaluation Report included in Appendix O.

5.4.1 Water Management Act
5.4.1.1 Allowable Withdrawals
Four of Easthampton’s supply wells (Nonotuck Park Well, Hendrick Street Wellfield, and Pines
Well) are Registered, but are not required to have a permit because they were installed prior to
1986 when the Water Management Act (WMA) became effective. As registered wells they are
not subject to specific permit requirements of the WMA.
A WMA permit was issued to the City on September 7, 2005 due to the addition of the Brook
Street Well (Permit #9P4-1-06-087.01). The most recent WMA permit was issued to Easthampton
on November 6, 2014, and established allowable average daily and total annual water supply
withdrawal limits for the whole system between December 2013 and November 2017 of 3.31
MGD, but it does not limit withdrawals from any of the registered wells, as long as they stay under
3.31 MGD for the whole system. WMA permits are typically issued for a 20-year period, with an
authorized average daily withdrawal rate specified in five-year increments.
Because it is the only permitted well, the Brook Street Well is currently the only one of
Easthampton’s supply wells that has an individual source maximum daily withdrawal limit (safe
yield). The Brook Street Well cannot be pumped above a limit of 1.414 MGD at any time.
Easthampton has the ability to pump water from the remaining four sources at any rate to meet
daily demand as long as the Registered Withdrawal Limit is not exceeded on an annual average
basis. However, if Easthampton were to request additional withdrawal volume in the future, it is
possible that the MassDEP would establish maximum daily withdrawal limits (safe yield) for the
remaining four supply sources. The safe yield could limit the maximum daily withdrawal from the
remaining four sources, reducing the City’s operational flexibility to meet maximum day demand.
5.4.1.2 Performance Standards
The WMA program sets a State Water Conservation Standard of 65 residential gallons per capita
day (RGPCD) for water use. This figure is also a benchmark performance standard in the state’s
WMA permitting and a requirement of the City’s WMA Permit (Special Condition 5). Per capita
figures below 65 RGPCD are considered reflective of efficient water use. Figures over 65 RGPCD
are considered as indicative of excess non-essential water use and a need for increased water
conservation. As a condition of the November 2014 WMA permit Easthampton was required to

meet performance standards for (RGPCD) by December 31, 2016. Easthampton met the
performance standard for RGPCD in 2015.
Unaccounted for water (UAW) is the difference between the total amount of water supplied to the
distribution system (as measured by well pump station flow meters), minus the sum of all amounts
of water measured in the distribution system by consumption meters, and minus confidently
estimated and documented amounts used for certain necessary purposes, such as fire flows and
water main flushing and breaks. The performance standard in Easthampton’s WMA permit is
10% or below UAW. Because Easthampton has more UAW than this (see Section 5.4.4.2), the
City must submit a UAW Compliance Plan as a condition of the City’s WMA Permit. To reduce
UAW and meet the performance standard Easthampton can implement a leak detection survey
program.
Residential Water Demand

The majority of Easthampton’s water use is in the residential classification. Determining a
RGPCD for the water system and applying that to future population projections for Easthampton
provides an estimated future residential demand figure. Recent RGPCD data for Easthampton
as reported in the water system ASRs for the past 5 years is shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2
Residential Gallons Per Capita per Day
Year Reported RGPCD

2011 57.9
2012 65.3
2013 56.3
2014 55.2
2015 57.3
AVERAGE 58.4
Notes:
RGPCD – Residential Gallon Per Capita Day
The data, as summarized in Table 5-2, indicates Easthampton’s residential water use consistently
meets the WMA performance standard, with the RGPCD reported between 2011 and 2015
ranging from approximately 55 RGPCD to 65 RGPCD. The RGPCD data indicates an average
residential demand that reliably falls between 55-65 RGPCD. Consequently, the average RGPCD

value between 2011 and 2015 of 58.4 RGPCD will be utilized for demand projection calculations
(refer to Section 3.2).
5.4.1.3 Unaccounted for Water
Based on the MassDEP WMA Permit Guidance Document (November 2014), Unaccounted for
Water (UAW) “is defined as the residual resulting from the total amount of water supplied to a
distribution system as measured by master meters, minus the sum of all amounts of water
measured by consumption meters in the distribution systems, and minus confidently estimated
and documented amounts used for certain necessary purposes. UAW shall include, without
limitation: unavoidable leakage, recoverable leakage, service meter inaccuracies (unless they fall
under the category of source meter calibration which allows for adjustment per results of source
meter calibration), errors in estimation of stopped meters, unauthorized hydrant openings, illegal
connections, stand pipe overflows, data processing errors; and undocumented firefighting uses.”
The Massachusetts WMA program sets a benchmark Performance Standard for UAW as a
condition of a WMA permit, which stipulates that public water suppliers are required to maintain
a UAW of 10% or less of the total water withdrawal. The City’s WMA permit requires Easthampton
to maintain its UAW at or below 10% (Special Condition 6). UAW typically results in loss of the
water supply with no productive use. Minimizing UAW effectively increases available water supply
without any additional burden on local water supplies. Therefore, the expectation under the WMA
program is that public water suppliers will reduce UAW to 10% or below to show good stewardship
of their resources.
The UAW values for Easthampton as reported in the water system ASRs for 2011 through 2015
are listed in Table 5-3. The City’s November 2014 WMA permit states that the MassDEP adjusted
the UAW value reported in the City’s 2011 ASR from 18.9% to 7.3%. However, based on the
MassDEP Performance Standards for Public Water Supplies spreadsheet (MassDEP, 2016), the
MassDEP accepted the UAW value for 2011 as presented in the ASR (18.9 %). Therefore, it was
assumed the 2011 value as presented in the 2011 ASR is accurate for the purposes of this
analysis. In addition, based on the MassDEP Performance Standards for Public Water Supplies
spreadsheet (MassDEP, 2016) MassDEP adjusted the City’s 2014 UAW value from 16.9% (stated
on the City’s 2014 ASR) to 27%.

Table 5-3
Unaccounted for Water (UAW)
Reported UAW
Year
(%)
2011 18.9
2012 21.6
2013 37.01
2014 27
2015 20.2
AVERAGE1 21.9
12013 UAW value excluded from average
As shown in Table 5-3, Easthampton reported UAW values above its WMA Permit Performance
Standard of 10%, with values ranging from 18.9% to 37%. There are various measures to reduce
UAW, including improved leak detection and metering, which are described in Section 3.3.2. In
February 2014, the City located a major water main break (approximately 104 gallons per minute
(gpm)) near a stream and promptly repaired the leak. As a result, the City reported a decrease
in UAW in 2014 compared to the UAW value reported in 2013. The high value in 2013 was
assumed to be due to the major water main break, thus the 2013 value was excluded from the
average UAW for the purposes of this analysis. Consequently, the average UAW value of 21.9%
was used for demand projection calculations (refer to Section 5.4.4.2).
5.4.2 Sustainable Water Management Initiative (SWMI) Program
The SWMI Permitting Framework was developed by the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) and its agencies with the objective of helping balance
ecological and human water needs through the WMA. The SWMI development process began
in 2010 and involved an Advisory Committee, Technical Subcommittee and stakeholders, all of
whom were engaged in the development of the Framework. The SWMI Framework document
was issued Final in November 2012, following a public comment period. MassDEP applied the
SWMI Framework to WMA permitting and new WMA Regulations (310 CMR 36.00) were
promulgated in the fall of 2014
(See http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/watersheds/water-management-act-
program.html#4).

MassDEP will apply requirements under the November 2014 WMA Permit Guidance Document
when a water supplier’s WMA permit is up for renewal, or when a water supplier requests an
increase in withdrawal above an established baseline withdrawal. When volume is requested
above an established baseline withdrawal, MassDEP will check the request against the existing
total basin withdrawals and the overall basin safe yield. Then, the WMA permit will be subject to
the Tier levels and corresponding requirements presented in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4
Water Management Act Permit Tiers
Tier Trigger Requirements

Tier 1 No additional withdrawal request above Minimize impacts by achieving the following
Baseline- all GWCs demand management steps, which apply to all
Permits:
• 65 RGPCD
• 10% unaccounted for water
• Institute limitations on nonessential
outdoor water use.
• Water conservation program for water
audits and leak detection, meter
repair/replace, water revenue
evaluation, public education and
Additional requirements for groundwater outreach
sources in subbasins with an August net Develop and Implement a plan to minimize
groundwater depletion of 25% or more impacts in 25% or greater August Net
(GWC 4 & 5) Groundwater Depleted subbasins (GWC 4&5)
Tier 2 Withdrawal request above baseline; which In addition to the Tier 1 requirements, develop
results in no change in subbasin a mitigation plan and mitigate impacts
groundwater withdrawal category or commensurate with impact of withdrawal
biological category
Tier 3 Withdrawal request above baseline that In addition to Tier 1 & 2 requirements,
changes the subbasin groundwater demonstrate no feasible alternative source that
withdrawal category or biological category is less environmentally harmful
Note: Further additional requirements apply for sources in subbasins with Coldwater Fish Resources .
Four of Easthampton’s groundwater supply wells (Hendrick Street Wellfield, Pines Street Well,
Nonotuck Road Well, and Brook Street Well) are located within the Manhan River Subbasin (ID
14069) that has been determined to have August net groundwater depletion levels of 25% or
greater, which is an indication of negative environmental impacts on streamflow and aquatic
habitat according to US Geological Survey studies. Although Easthampton does not have an
established baseline withdrawal, the WMA Guidance Document states that all groundwater
permittees with withdrawals in subbasins with significant groundwater depletion must minimize

the impacts of their withdrawals in those subbasins. Therefore, there is the potential that in the
future Easthampton may be required to implement minimization efforts to reduce environmental
impacts of its withdrawals. Demand management and conservation measures that the City of
Easthampton could implement to help reduce impacts are discussed in Section 5.5.4.
5.4.3 Water Demand Classification
Easthampton records water consumption based on meter reading data and the classification of
the water account. Water classifications in Easthampton consist of the categories listed below
with their MassDEP definitions. Unmetered uses, such as fire protection & training and major
water main breaks are included as confidently estimated municipal use (CEMU).
• Residential – Water provided to residences, including apartments, condos, and seasonal

homes, and including lawn watering.
• Residential Institutions – Water provided to institutions with residential population, such
as colleges.
• Commercial / Business – Water provided to businesses and other commercial entities.
• Agricultural – Water provided that is used mainly to grow food, raise animals, or run a
garden center.
• Industrial – Water used for industrial purposes.
• Municipal / Institutional / Non-Profits – Water used for municipal purposes, including
schools, playing fields, municipal buildings, treatment plants; non-profits such as
churches; non-residential institutions such as private schools.
• Other – Water sold to other communities and CEMU.
• Unaccounted for Water - the total amount of water supplied to a distribution system
minus the sum of all amounts of water measured by consumption meters in the distribution
system, and minus confidently estimated and documented amounts used for certain
necessary purposes.

Water use data from the Easthampton Annual Statistical Reports (ASR) that were submitted to
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) between 2011-2015
were used to identify a current baseline of water use in Easthampton. Residential water demand
in Easthampton is greater than all other classifications combined, as seen in water systems in
communities with demographics similar to Easthampton. The percent breakdown of the average
water demand between the water use classifications in shown in Figure 5-2.
UAW, 24.9%
Other, 3.1%
Residential, 60.1%
Municipal, 2.3%
Industrial, 3.8%
Agricultural, 0.2%
Commercial, 3.9%
Residential
Institution, 1.7%
Figure 5-2
2011-2015 Average Water Demand by Classification
5.4.3.1 Current Average Day Demand (Add)
The average day demand (ADD) is the average volume of water consumed per day in a service
area over the course of a year (Total Annual Demand ÷ 365). The total water provided includes
water used for maintenance, hydrant flushing and any unaccounted for water (UAW) that may not
be used directly by the end user. Average day demand values provide the basis for determining
the adequacy of the registered withdrawal limit of water supply sources.

Between 2009 and 2015 the City’s ADD was well below the City’s Registered Withdrawal Volume.
Based on Figure 5-3, the City’s ADD has remained relatively consistent between 2009 and 2015.
The rise in demand in 2013 is attributable to leakage from an estimated 104 gpm water main
break that was identified and repaired in February 2014. The average ADD value, based on the
volume of raw water pumped from sources minus water sold was 1.52 MGD.
3.500
Million Gallons per Day
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year
ADD Registered Volume
Figure 5-3
Historic Demands and Withdrawal Volume (MGD)
5.4.3.2 Projected Future Water Use
Future water demands were estimated using the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission
(WRC) Policy for Developing Water Needs Forecasts for Public Water Suppliers and
Communities and Methodology for Implementation, 2009. The forecast methodology takes into
consideration historic and existing water-use patterns, population projections, and employment
projections, and is consistent with water-use efficiency and conservation standards outlined in the
Massachusetts Water Policy (EOEA 2004) and the Water Conservation Standards (EOEA and
WRC 2006). The future water use in Easthampton was estimated using information from the
projected population growth, projected employment, additional development, and water use
efficiency within Easthampton.

Population
The population of Easthampton in 2035, at the end of the 20-year planning period, is projected to
be 17,540 persons based on the PVPC published population estimates. This is an increase from
the 2014 population of 16,066 persons. Details of the population projection are presented in
Section 3.4.2.
Employment
Based on Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Demographics and Socio-Economic
Forecasts (MassDOT, 2016), employment in Easthampton is expected to increase by
approximately 5.4% between 2015 and 2035. The projected 5.4% increase in employment was
utilized for the water demand projection calculations.
Development
Easthampton is primarily zoned as residential, with the majority of land acreage zoned Rural
Residential. Based on the City’s Master Plan, as of 2007 approximately 80% of the total parcels
in the City were residential development and only 4.3% of parcels within the City were vacant
developable parcels. Easthampton is close to reaching full build-out according to the City
Planning Department. Easthampton is taking steps to encourage infilling of development and re-
use of underutilized properties.
Therefore, the estimated water demand required by the projected change in employment in
Easthampton and potential development projects in our future water demand analysis. As
significant increases in development in Easthampton are not anticipated the demand projections
were done using the residential component accounting for the projected increase in population
and employment. However, several anticipated development projects were included based on
known anticipated projects. These projects and their estimated water demands are listed in the
Drinking Water Evaluation Report (Appendix O).
Water-use efficiency
The future water demand was estimated with different water use efficiency and UAW scenarios
per the WRC methodology to project how changes in UAW and residential water use in GPCD
impact ADD over time. The four combinations of current water use and UAW with performance
standard water use and UAW were used to project future water demands. Each scenario and the
projected water use are shown in Table 5-5. For the purposes of this evaluation the most
conservative future ADD future demand projection of 1.77 MGD was used.

Table 5-5
Summary of ADD (2035) under 2009 WRC Scenario 1 through 4
ADD In 2035
Scenario RGPCD UAW (%)
(MGD)
Current Average Current Average
1 1.65
(58.4) (21.9)
Current Average Performance Standard
2 1.49
(58.4) (10)
Performance Standard Current Average
3 1.77
(65) (21.9)
Performance Standard Performance Standard
4 1.62
(65) (10)
Notes:
ADD – Average Day Demand
MGD – Million Gallons Per Day
RGPCD – Residential Gallons per Capita per Day
UAW – Unaccounted for Water
5.4.3.3 Current and Future Maximum Day Demand (MDD)
The maximum day demand (MDD) is the largest single day of water demand (24-hour period) in
the water system over the course of a year. The MDD provides the basis for determining the
adequacy of the combined capacity of the City’s water supply sources. The highest demand days
often occur consecutively so water supply systems must be capable of delivering the maximum
day demand without dependence on water system storage. Storage should be reserved to meet
demands during periods of peak consumption and should provide the volume of water required
for fire protection. If the combined pumping capacity from all of the City’s water supply sources
is less than the maximum day demand, the water level in the storage tanks will drop, ultimately
jeopardizing system pressures and emergency storage. Based on a review of Easthampton’s
ASRs the MDD in the Easthampton system averaged 2.83 MGD from 2011 through 2015 (see
Table 5.6.
The ADD/MDD ratio is a ratio which represents the relationship between the maximum day and
average day demand (ADD/MDD Ratio = Maximum Day Demand  Average Day Demand) and
depends upon the characteristics of the community. Typically, the ADD/MDD ratio will be greater
in residential communities with seasonal population fluctuations and small amounts of industry.
For example, Cape Cod can see ADD/MDD ratios that approach 3.0 at certain times during the
year. Conversely, highly industrialized, densely populated communities experience a smaller
ADD/MDD ratio, closer to 1.0, because industries are generally not subject to seasonal
fluctuations. The average ADD/MDD ratio in Easthampton from 2011 through 2015 was 1.87

(see Table 5-6). Assuming the seasonal fluctuations will stay fixed over time this ratio was
multiplied by the projected ADD for 2035 to calculate the projected MDD for 2035. This results in
a projected MDD of approximately 3.31 MGD in 2035.
Table 5-6
Historic and Projected ADD and MDD
ADD MDD ADD/MDD

Year Source
(MGD) (MGD) Ratio
2011 1.425 2.890 2.0 ASR
2012 1.639 3.267 2.0 ASR
2013 1.716 2.558 1.5 ASR
2014 1.459 2.817 1.9 ASR
2015 1.459 2.608 1.8 ASR
Average (2011-2015) 1.52 2.83 1.87 -
2035 1.77 3.31 1.87 Projection
Notes:
ASR = Annual Statistical Report
ADD = Average Daily Demand
MDD = Maximum Daily Demand
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
5.4.4 Conservation and Demand Management
5.4.4.1 Assessment of Current Practices
The City of Easthampton currently implements a streamflow trigger for outdoor water use
restriction between May 1st and September 30th. The restriction meets the City’s WMA Permit
and prohibits nonessential outdoor use to the following:
• When flow is below the Aquatic Base Flow (ABF) for three (3) consecutive days: outdoor
water use is allowed a maximum of 2 days per week outside the hours of 9am and 5pm.
• When 7-day low-flow trigger occurs or when a Drought Advisory or higher is declared by
the Massachusetts Drought Management Task Force: outdoor water use is allowed a
maximum of 1 day per week outside the hours of 9am and 5pm.
The City does not have a formal program for conducting leak detection surveys of the distribution
system. In general, the City repairs leaks as they occur; however, they occasionally conduct field

surveys of portions of its distribution system. The City reported that they have the equipment to
internally perform leak detection surveys; however, they do not have the personnel. Based on
the frequency of the past leak detection surveys, the City does not currently meet the Minimum
Water Conservation Requirements, (Table 5 of the WMA Permit). The City’s WMA Permit states
that a leak detection survey of the entire water distribution system should be completed at a
minimum of every three years.
5.4.4.2 Analysis of the UAW Performance Standard
As discussed in Section 5.4.1.3, the City reported UAW ranging from 18.9% to 37% between 2011
and 2015. The following are suspected reasons as to why the City is not meeting the
Massachusetts UAW performance standard of 10%.
Manual and Estimated Meter Readings

Based on discussions with the Easthampton Water Department, the Water Department is in the
process of converting all water meters to an automatic meter reading (AMR) system. However,
the Water Department personnel still manually read and transcribe approximately 1,000 meters,
or 17.5% of all the installed City water meters. Manually transcribing readings may result in flawed
data transference since this data cannot be accurately validated. The City will benefit from
eliminating any manual transference of data and converting all water meters to the AMR system
for both efficiency and accuracy.
Based on the City’s 2015 ASR, approximately 99% of the City’s water distribution system is
metered with 76% of municipal buildings metered. Based on discussions with the Easthampton
Water Department, various types of municipal buildings and facilities are not metered, including
schools, athletic fields, and older municipal buildings that are infrequently used and the water
utilized each year in the unmetered buildings and facilities is difficult to confidently estimate. The
Easthampton Water Department is currently working towards metering park facilities.
Leak Detection Practices

The City has not conducted a leak detection survey of the entire water distribution system within
the past five years. In addition, the most recent leak detection survey (conducted in June 2011)
identified 10 leaks. The 2011 ASR did not quantify the volume lost as a result of the 10 leaks
identified but the volume could have accounted for substantial losses within the system. In
addition, the City reported an estimated volume of water as a result of a leak in either the UAW

section or the CEMU section of its ASRs in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The City would benefit
from conducting more frequent leak detection surveys to reduce UAW losses caused by leaks.
CEMU Tracking
Based on discussions with the Easthampton Water Department, the Water Department does not
have a formal flushing program in place or a formal tracking system for leaks and/or breaks within
the distribution system. In 2011, the City did not report a volume of CEMU and between 2012
and 2015 the majority of CEMU reported on the ASRs was due to major water main breaks.
Based on discussions with the Easthampton Water Department, the MassDEP adjusted the City’s
UAW in 2014 (as discussed in Section 3.1.4) because the MassDEP thought that the volume
reported for major water main breaks was overestimated. The City would benefit from a more
detailed accounting system to estimate CEMU values on an annual basis. To be fully successful
in tracking CEMU, increased system monitoring and penalties are necessary to ensure that no
unauthorized uses are occurring and that every authorized use is being properly documented.
5.4.4.3 Recommended Conservation Measures
Table 5 of the City’s WMA Permit identifies minimum water conservation measures in regards to
System Water Audit and Leak Detection, Metering, Pricing, Residential and Public Sector
Conservation, Industrial and Commercial Water Conservation, and Public Education and
Outreach. In addition, the New England Water Works Association (NEWWA) Toolbox of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) was developed by NEWWA for water suppliers to use as a “menu”
of various BMPs for demand management and conservation that can be considered for managing
a water system. We evaluated potential conservation and demand management options for
Easthampton and summarized them and the potential benefits of implementation in Table 5-7.
Easthampton should consider implementing these options as they will reduce overall system
costs and O&M efforts.

Table 5-7
Conservation and/or Demand Management Options
Action Benefits of Action

1. Leak Detection
Complete leak detection surveys of entire water • Leak detection surveys will identify UAW losses in
distribution network at a minimum of every 3 years the system.
as required in the City’s WMA permit. • Compliance with the City’s 2014 WMA permit.
Create a formalized repair program in accordance • The repair of leaks will reduce the level of
with AWWA Manual 36. unmetered water lost from the system and will
reduce UAW.
• Compliance with the City’s 2014 WMA permit.
Maintain a break and leak database in order to • A leak database will allow maintenance, repair
spatially identify areas prone to leakage. Track and rehabilitation activities to be completed more
leak locations, flow rate, possible contributing efficiently in an effort to address leaks before they
factors, and repair dates to document Plan occur and limit UAW. Areas of the City could be
compliance. The City should update the database prioritized based on water main age, material, and
as breaks and/or leaks are repaired, and annually break history to target smaller but higher risk
with new break/leak detection information. areas for more comprehensive methods of leak
detection.
• Tracking will also aid in the documentation
required for MassDEP submissions (ASRs, Plan
compliance, etc.).
2. Water Audit
Complete a top down water audit of entire system. • Top down water audits aid in the identification of
sources of UAW and in the prioritization of the
efforts needed to address UAW. This approach
provides a preliminary assessment of water loss
and understanding and insight to the quality of
available water supply.
Maintain database to account for Confidently • Accurate estimates of CEMU and the elimination
Estimated Municipal Usage, ensure uses are of unauthorized water uses may reduce UAW.
consistently and accurately logged. • Tracking will also aid in the documentation
required for MassDEP submissions (ASRs, Plan
compliance, etc.).
3. Metered Uses
Ensure 100% Metering of the Distribution System. • Metering 100% of the distribution system will allow
the City to account for water utilized by municipal
buildings and irrigation which is currently
unmetered and difficult to estimate.
• Compliance with the City’s 2014 WMA permit.

4. Water Meter Evaluation Program
Create and maintain a Meter Evaluation Program • A Meter Evaluation Program database will allow
database in Excel (or equivalent) to track efforts maintenance, testing, calibration, and replacement
and document compliance with this task. activities to be completed more efficiently in an
Continually update as new information is gathered effort to address meter issues and resulting UAW
and efforts undertaken. The standards in a timely manner.
recommend that meters be replaced every 10-15 • Compliance with the City’s 2014 WMA permit.
years, with more frequent maintenance for large • Tracking will also aid in the documentation
commercial meters. Recommendations for Large required for MassDEP submissions (ASRs, Plan
and Medium Service Meters are included below. compliance, etc.)
A. Large Service Meters (2” or greater) – • Periodic testing, calibration and repair of large
Inspect and evaluate all large meters, and meters will enhance the reliability of customer
as appropriate, test, calibrate, repair or meter data and limit UAW by accurately
downsize (as needed) all large meters. All accounting for water sold.
wired connections from water meter to • Reviewing water use and downsizing meters as
meter touch pad should be repaired to needed will result in further accounting accuracy.
eliminate any manual transcribing of
customer water usage.
B. Medium Service Meters (1” or greater and • Periodic testing, calibration, repair or replacement
less than 2”) and Small Service Meters of medium and small service meters will enhance
(less than 1”) – Evaluate replacement the reliability of customer meter data and limit
schedule for all medium and small service UAW by accurately accounting for water sold.
meters. Inspect, test, calibrate, repair or
replace any medium or small service
meters as appropriate. All wired
connections from water meter to meter
touch pad should be repaired to eliminate
any manual transcribing of customer
water usage.
5. Pricing and Billing Structure
Complete a billing system review to ensure all • A detailed billing system review to identify and
meter information (size, volume units, etc.) is address input and data errors will increase the
accurate and that water volume calculations are accounting of all water sold. If the errors have
being completed correctly. A review of each under-recorded “water sold” data previously, a
account should be completed. decrease to UAW can be expected.
Conduct a water rate study that considers • Encourage conservation during months of peak
seasonal use mitigation. Evaluate existing rate demand in an effort to protect/maintain water
structure and consider adopting increased supply levels.
seasonal rates.
6. Public Outreach
Develop a Public Education and Outreach • Develop public awareness and understanding for
Program designed to inform water customers of the need for conservation.
ways to conserve water. • Compliance with the City’s 2014 WMA permit.
7. Residential Indoor Demand Management
Consider a program to encourage residential • Easthampton currently meets the WMA Permit
indoor demand management. The program could requirement of 65 RGPD, so a program to reduce
include: water use is not mandated. However it may be
• Water saving device giveaways or worthwhile to consider program opportunities to
installation reduce water use.
• Incentives for high-efficiency appliances
• Residential Water Audits

8. Non-residential Indoor Demand Management
Retrofit municipally-owned public buildings with • Compliance with the City’s 2014 WMA permit. Per
water saving devices. the City’s WMA permit, municipally-owned public
buildings should be retrofitted with water saving
devices by May 31, 2018.
• Reduce water use.
5.5 WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
5.5.1 Adequacy of Existing Supply
The ability of Easthampton’s water system to meet the projected 2035 water demand was
evaluated by examining the adequacy of its supplies. Water supply adequacy is evaluated based
on how the supply is permitted and how the water system operates. In most cases, one of these
two factors (permit limits or operational limits) determines the actual available supply. In
Easthampton the ability to meet future MDD is more limited by existing pumping capacity than the
current WMA Permit registration.
5.5.1.1 Available Supply Relative to WMA Registration and Permit
Easthampton draws drinking water from four groundwater supply wells and one wellfield within
the Barnes Aquifer. The Barnes Aquifer is a sole source aquifer which extends approximately 12
miles beneath portions of four communities: Westfield, Holyoke, Southampton, and Easthampton.
Four of Easthampton’s groundwater wells (Nonotuck Park Well, Brook Street Well, Hendrick
Street Wellfield, and Pines Well) are registered through the City’s established WMA Permit
Registration (See Section 5.5.1.1). The Brook Street Well is subject to a WMA safe yield permit.
The City has discretion to pump its supply wells in any combination to meet its system demands,
provided the following two requirements from the City’s WMA permit are met:
1. The allowable average daily registered water supply withdrawal limit (3.31 MGD for all
of the City water sources) is not exceeded over the course of a calendar year. Anytime
the City pumps above its registered limit (3.31 MGD on an average daily basis), it must
pump below the limit enough corresponding days to ensure that the total annual
withdrawal volume is not exceeded (3.31 MGD x 365 = 1,208 Million Gallons per Year).
2. The Brook Street Well is not pumped above its safe yield (1.414 MGD) over a 24-hour
period

The safe yield that Brook Street Well is subject to is the maximum daily withdrawal permitted to
ensure that neither the well, nor the contributing aquifer, are overstressed. The safe yield
considers the effects of pumping during drought conditions and is often lower than the rated
capacity of the source. Since Easthampton’s other four wells (Hendricks Street Wellfield, Pines
Well, Nonotuck Park Well, and Maloney Park Well) were installed prior to the WMA being passed
into law and Easthampton has not requested an increase to its Registered Withdrawal Volume,
these wells do not currently have individual safe yields.
Easthampton has adequate water supply under its current WMA permit to meet projected average
daily water demands through the 20-year planning period of this report. In addition,
Easthampton’s current WMA permit does not establish maximum daily withdrawal limits on four
of its five wells, therefore, the WMA permit does not limit Easthampton in meeting projected water
demands on a maximum daily basis. The allowable current and projected water surplus
withdrawals are shown in Table 5-8. Current ADD is 1.52 MGD and the registered withdrawal
rate is 3.31, leaving a 1.79 MGD surplus supply based on the registered rate. Estimated future
average day water demands for 2035 are approximately 1.77 MGD (Section 5.5.3). Assuming
the current WMA Registered Withdrawal rate of 3.31 MGD still applies in 2035 an estimated 1.54
MGD of surplus water will be available on an average day basis.
Table 5-8
Surplus Water Supply Relative to WMA Registration
Current
Projected
Average
(2035)
Daily Water Withdrawals (2011 – 2015)
MGD MGD
Average Daily Demand (ADD) 1.52 1.77
WMA Registered Withdrawal 3.31 3.31
Surplus Supply 1.79 1.54
MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
5.5.1.2 Available Supply Relative to Pumping Capacity
The ability of Easthampton’s supply wells to meet increased demands in the future depends on
the reliable capacity of the wells. The reliable capacity is a conservative estimate of the current
pumping capacity at each well, based on the experience of Easthampton’s water system
operators. It assumes the wells are operating continuously (24 hours per day) in order to meet

maximum day demand, which is different from typical, average day operating conditions. The
current reliable capacity from each source is listed in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9
Water Supply Well Reliable Capacity
Rated Capacity1 Reliable Capacity

Source
GPM GPM MGD
Nonotuck Park Well (08G) 1,041 1,100 1.58
Brook Street Well (09G) 1,500 9802 1.4142
Hendrick Street Wellfield (04G) 2,639 1,4003 2.016
Pines Well (05G) 725 750 1.08
Maloney Well (07G) 1,500 1,050 1.51
Total of All Sources 7,405 5,280 7.6
Total without Maloney Well4 5,905 4,230 6.09
Notes:
WMA = Water Management Act
MGD = million gallons per day
1. Rated capacity was obtained from the City’s 2015 Annual Statistical Report.
2. Although the reliable capacity of the Brook Street Well is reported to be approximately 1,100 gpm
(1.58 MGD), the maximum daily withdrawal is limited to 1.414 MGD by the City’s WMA Permit.
3. Tubular wellfield has a reported reliable capacity of 1,400 gpm with two pumps operational.
4. Easthampton only utilizes the Maloney Well as a back-up source due to elevated levels of iron
and manganese. Treatment would likely be required if this well is to be used regularly to meet
demand. Therefore, Maloney was excluded from the total reliable capacity.
The estimated reliable capacity of Easthampton’s water supply wells on a maximum basis is
approximately 6.09 MGD, not including the Maloney Well, which is only used as a back-up source.
The future projected MDD is 3.31 MGD, thus the estimated water supply surplus on a maximum
daily basis based on reliable supply capacity is 2.78 MGD (6.09 MGD – 3.31 MGD). This reliable
supply assumes that MDD is met with all wells online (except Malony) without relying on water
system storage.
5.5.1.3 Supply Adequacy without Single Largest Source
Based on the reported reliable capacities of the supply wells as summarized in Table 5-9, the
largest source is the Hendrick Street Wellfield with two pumps operating. With the Hendrick Street
Wellfield offline, the total reliable capacity of all water supply sources in the Easthampton system
is reduced from approximately 6.09 MGD to 4.074 MGD.

Without the single largest supply source Easthampton can still meet its current (2.83 MGD) and
projected 2035 (3.31 MGD) MDD with an estimated water supply surplus of approximately 0.76
MGD on a maximum daily basis by 2035.
5.5.2 Water Treatment Capacity
Easthampton’s reliable drinking water capacity is limited primarily by treatment. While there is a
surplus supply of 0.76 MGD based on the reliable supply and its future water demands, when
treatment capacity is considered, there is a deficit. The City’s largest sources, Hendrick Street
Wellfield and the Pines Well are treated at the Hendrick Street WTF to remove trichloroethylene
(TCE). A single PTA blower located at the Hendrick Street WTF was identified as a critical failure
point, which could reduce the WTF treatment capacity to zero. If the WTF capacity was reduced
to zero during a blower failure, the City could not meet the projected 2035 MDD of 3.31 MGD.
The reliable capacity of the current water distribution system, considering well pumping and
treatment capacity, under current operating conditions, is summarized in Table 5-10.
There is no treatment process redundancy for treating the Hendrick Street Wellfield and Pines
wells, which supply about 50% of the City’s demand. From an overall system wide water supply
capacity perspective, the complete loss of PTA treatment would have the largest effect on system
capacity because it results in a complete loss of treatment capacity.
Table 5-10
Reliable Capacity Considering Treatment
Reliable Capacity
Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Source
Current System Redundant PTA Blower
Nonotuck Park Well 1.58 1.58
Brook Street Well1 1.414 1.414
Hendrick Street Wellfield
02 22
Pines Well
Maloney Well3 0 0
Total 2.994 4.994
Maximum Day Demand 2035 (3.31) (3.31)
Deficit / Surplus (0.316) 1.684
Notes:
1. Although the reliable capacity of the Brook Street Well is reported to be approximately 1,030 gpm (1.48
MGD), the maximum daily withdrawal is limited by the City’s WMA Permit to 1.414 MGD.
2. Lack of blower redundancy reduces the reliable capacity of the Water Treatment Facility to zero.
3. Utilized only as an emergency source due to elevated iron and manganese.

The installation of a redundant PTA blower would increase the reliable capacity from the wells
that must pass the WTF from zero to 2 MGD. This would change the reliable capacity of the
system from a deficit of 0.316 MGD to a surplus of 1.68 MGD on a maximum daily basis (2035),
as shown in Table 5-10. With the added blower redundancy, the projected overall surplus within
the City’s system would be limited by supply, which is projected to be 0.76 MGD on a maximum
daily basis by the end of the planning period.
Under current demand conditions the MDD is close to the existing reliable capacity. From 2011
through 2015 the average MDD was 2.83 MGD, which is under the reliable capacity of 2.994
MGD; however, in 2012 the MDD was as high as 3.267 MGD, which was above the reliable
capacity. If the PTA blower had been out of service that day the water demand would not have
been met. To ensure an adequate reliable supply a redundant PTA blower is recommended.
5.5.3 Surplus Supply
Without treatment redundancy at the Hendrick Street WTF Easthampton does not have a reliable
surplus supply of drinking water. Assuming a redundant blower is installed at the WTF,
Easthampton has an estimated water supply surplus of approximately 0.76 MGD on a future
maximum daily basis, with the Hendrick Street Wellfield and Maloney Well offline. This supply
surplus may be considered for use with unanticipated growth or long-term water system
expansion within Easthampton beyond the planning period of this report. Another alternative is
to consider selling the projected surplus supply to surrounding municipalities through water
system interconnections.
5.5.3.1 Potential Sale of Water
Because the City has an estimated surplus of approximately 0.76 MGD on a maximum daily basis
with the Hendrick Street Wellfield and Maloney Well offline, there is an interest in establishing a
permanent interconnection between Southampton and Easthampton to potentially sell water
supply to Southampton. The hydraulic capacity of the Easthampton distribution system for
transferring water to Southampton was evaluated. A flow of 750 gpm though three proposed
water system interconnections were evaluated: College Highway near Coleman Road, Coleman
Road at the end of the Manhan Rail Trail, and Cook Road, in addition to the available fire flow.
Based on the results of the analysis, pressures and fire flow in Easthampton’s water system are
not expected to be significantly impacted by providing flow through the interconnection at Cook
Road; however, available fire flow at the high school would be substantially impacted by providing

flow through the interconnections at Coleman Road and is not recommended without system
upgrades.
Another option may be to sell water to Northampton. If Easthampton is interested in constructing

a permanent interconnection for selling water to Northampton, the hydraulic capacity of both
systems will require evaluation.
5.6 WATER TREATMENT ANALYSIS
5.6.1 Overview
The main objectives of the treatment evaluation were to assess operations and treatment
performance, and to make recommendations for operational or treatment enhancements that
could improve reliability and performance with respect to existing and potential future water quality
regulations. The water treatment evaluation is based on staff interviews, site visits, and review of
two years of water quality monitoring reports for raw and treated water and two years of Consumer
Confidence Reports.
5.6.2 Operational Assessment
Maintenance, equipment condition, process operations, and staffing were assessed for their
impact on performance and reliability. No existing maintenance issues associated with the current
treatment process at the Hendrick Street Treatment Facility (WTF) or well heads were identified
or reported by staff. Three main operations limitations exist in the current system:
1. Some chemical additions are not paced to flow. This deficiency causes an increased level
of manual operator attention that could be easily remedied by adding instrumentation and
SCADA control.
2. The operations staffing level seems to just be sufficient to meet operational requirements,
with limited capacity to adjust to staffing problems should they arise.
3. The lack of redundancy of the packed tower aeration system (PTA) blower at the WTF is
a single point of failure that can significantly diminish the Easthampton’s overall reliable
water supply capacity.

Equipment in need of replacement was identified as part of the facilities assessment and
presented in Section 5.3 of this report.
5.6.3 Treatment Performance
5.6.3.1 Water Resources and Quality
Easthampton’s water supply resources include 5 groundwater sources:

• Hendrick Street Wellfield,
• Pines Well,
• Nonotuck Park Well,
• Brook Street Well, and
• Maloney Wells.
These water sources are generally of very high quality requiring little or no treatment to meet
existing regulations and maximum contaminant limits. Being of high quality, secondary
(unenforceable) standards for such things as iron, manganese, color, and taste and odor are also
easily met with the primary water supply sources. The Maloney well is the only exception
concerning compliance with secondary standards, however it would only be used in an
emergency. All of these groundwater sources are currently classified as NOT under the influence
of surface water, therefore surface water treatment is not required.
• The Nonotuck Park and Brook Street Wells are of sufficiently high quality to be used
without treatment or disinfection, and are used to satisfy about 50% of water demand.
• Water from the Hendrick Street Wellfield and Pines Well is also of very high quality, with
the exception of trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound (VOC), which
exceeds the maximum contaminant level of 5.0 ppb. The raw water levels of TCE have
been detected up to 6.0 ppb.
Easthampton is required to monitor the water quality of the finished water from the WTF, but not
the individual Hendrick Street Wellfield and Pines Well. Due to the very high quality, the City has
a waiver that reduces the frequency of monitoring of raw water supplies to every three years. The
general water quality parameters for the WTF finished water and the Brook Street, Maloney and
Nonotuck Well from the third quarter water quality monitoring report in 2015 are shown in Table
5-11.

Table 5-11
Water Quality Summary – Third Quarter 2015
Brook
MA
Maloney Nonotuck St.
Limits
Parameter Units WTF Well Well Well
Arsenic mg/L 0.006 0.01
0.05-
Aluminum mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.2
Calcium mg/L 32 40 37 36 No limit
Copper mg/L ND ND ND 0.014 1.3
Iron mg/L ND 0.21 ND ND 0.3
Magnesium mg/L 4.8 8.2 4.6 4.7 No limit
Manganese mg/L ND 0.12 ND ND 0.3*
Potassium mg/L 0.97 0.19 1.3 1.1 No limit
Silver mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.1
Zinc mg/L 0.012 ND ND ND 5
Chloride mg/L 34 36 38 30 250
Sulfate mg/L 14 32 13 18 250
Alkalinity mg/L 71 66 63 69 No limit
Hardness as Calcium Carbonate mg/L 120 200 140 130 No limit
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 160 190 190 170 500
Turbidity NTU 1.3 3 ND 1.5 --
Color PCU 5 5 5 5 15
Odor TNO 1 1 1 1 3
pH mg/L 7.93 8.28 8.32 7.38 6.5-8.5
* general population: 0.3 (lifetime); 1.0 (limit exposure to > 1.0 mg/L to 10 days) infants < 1 yr old: 0.3 (limit
exposure to > 0.3 mg/L to 10 days)
Some of the wells have measurable concentrations of water quality parameters that would be
cause for concern at higher concentrations, but are below regulatory limits. These include:
• The Brook Street Well shows high levels of nitrate, thought by City staff to be related to
nearby farming activity. Although levels are well below regulatory limits, enhanced
monitoring of nitrate and nitrite are recommended for this source as a precaution.
• The Maloney well is only used as a back-up and emergency supply because it contains
moderate levels of iron and manganese, which can cause discoloration of the water. Other
elevated water quality parameters include:

o Arsenic, which has been detected at levels from 3.0-6.0 ppb, below the 10.0 ppb
MCL.
o Turbidity of 3-12 NTU, likely due to the iron or manganese.
• The most recent (2015) lead and copper 90th percentile compliance values were 2.9 ppb
and 0.77 mg/L, respectively. These are significantly less than the Action Levels for lead
(15 ppb) and copper (1.3 mg/L).
• The Unregulated Contaminants strontium, vanadium, hexavalent chromium, chlorate, and

1,4 diozane are all present at very low concentrations in the City’s water sources, below
any current regulatory thresholds. These could possibly become regulated in the future
and require compliance with maximum contaminant limits. None of these contaminants
would be removed by the existing packed tower aeration system.
The City has not been required to monitor for total or dissolved organic carbon (TOC or DOC).
TOC and DOC levels are generally low in groundwater, although occasionally there are
exceptions. These natural organics contribute to the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs)
when chlorine is used for disinfection. The City currently operates with very little free chlorine
residual, which are only dosed at the Hendrick WTF, and historical DPBs are low or non-detect.
However, in the event that a higher level of chlorine residual is ever needed it would be useful to
have an historical database of TOC. We therefore recommend the addition of TOC to the
quarterly monitoring program. TOC analysis includes the DOC component and is sufficient
analytically unless an issue arises in the future.
Due to the high raw water pH, alkalinity, and calcium content adjustments for corrosion control
are not necessary.
5.6.3.2 Contaminants of Recent Concern
There are two contaminants of recent concern that are receiving regulatory focus by EPA:
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). They originate from
firefighting foams, plastics, coating additives, cleaning products, and pesticides. They are
persistent, highly mobile in surface and groundwater, and bio accumulate. Toxicology studies are
incomplete, but EPA has stated that they may “likely be carcinogenic to humans.” EPA has
established heath advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS of 0.4 ppb and 0.2 ppb, respectively. Some
states are establishing lower advisory levels: Maine: 0.1 ppb; New Hampshire: 0.3 ppb; and

Vermont: 0.02 ppb. MassDEP is following EPA guidance on this issue. Recent sites where
PFOA/PFOS have been detected are:
o Hyannis, MA
o Dover, NH
o Merrimack, NH
o Portsmouth, NH
o N. Bennington, VT
o Hoosick Falls, NY
The best available treatment technology for removing PFOA and PFOS is granular activated
carbon (GAC) adsorption. The City should begin monitoring for these compounds according to
MassDEP guidance.
5.6.3.3 Treatment Processes
The Hendrick WTF includes the Hendrick Street tubular wellfield, Pines well supply, and a packed
tower aeration system (PTA). The tubular wellfield at Hendrick Street supplies a low lift station
containing three low lift pumps, which along with the Pines well pump, feed the PTA system. The
Pines and Hendrick Street supplies are usually blended together and treated by the PTA system,
but either source can be treated alone.
The 20 year old PTA system consists of one packed tower and one blower, with a maximum
treatment capacity of 2,800 GPM (4.0 MGD). The PTA system wet well has a volume of
approximately 28,000 gallons and is under the packed tower. The packed tower aeration process
removes the TCE to non-detect (ND) or highest value reported of 1.2 µg/L, much lower than the
MCL of 5.0 µg/L. There is no treatment process redundancy for treating the Hendrick Street
Wellfield and Pines wells, which supply about 50% of the City’s demand. Staff reports that on
one occasion, due to a blower failure, TCE entered the distribution system at greater than the
MCL for several hours. This incident highlights the possible need for greater treatment
redundancy and a higher level of instrumentation and control with alarms.
After the air stripping process to remove the TCE a very small quantity (approximately 0.3 lbs/day)
of chlorine gas is added to achieve low finished water residuals (0.1 mg/L). At the low
consumption rate, a single standard cylinder will last for months between change-outs. Chlorine

gas is toxic and the infrequent chemical handling by operators presents a risk of safety lapses
when chlorine gas tanks are handled.
Adjustment of the treated water with pH for corrosion control is not needed.
Brook Street Well and Nonotuck Well are pumped directly to distribution without treatment due to
their very high quality. A tablet style chlorine dissolving and feed system is installed at Brook
Street but is not used at this time. The chlorine dosing system is not set up for flow pacing. The
Brook Street station has turbidity, chlorine, and pH monitors installed, but they are not used at
this time. The Nonotuck station has neither a chlorine feed system, nor water quality monitors.
5.6.4 Summary of Treatment Recommendations
The following list summarizes the recommendations stemming from the treatment system
assessment. Items 2 and 3 are included in the 5-year CIP. Other items are assumed to be
covered through the operations budget.
1. Operations staffing seems to be at minimal level. We recommend adding one or more

junior operators to be mentored by the experienced staff as a means of proactive
succession planning.
2. Some chemical additions are not paced to flow. Improvements are recommended to pace
chemical dosage to flow in all chemical applications throughout the system.
3. The reliable capacity of the WTF is zero due to the lack of blower redundancy. A second
blower at the PTA is recommended for process reliability.
4. Continue measuring the unregulated contaminants so that any significant increase in
concentration can be detected, and monitor the progression of regulatory status as it
evolves.
5. Add TOC to the quarterly monitoring program. TOC analysis includes the DOC
component and is sufficient analytically unless an issue arises in the future.
6. Begin monitoring for PFOA and PFOS compounds according to MassDEP guidance.
7. As a precaution increase monitoring of nitrate and nitrite at the Brook Street Well.
8. Replace chlorine gas system with liquid sodium hypochlorite chemical feed system to
address safety risk to operators and to enhance operational control.
9. Replace pumps and motors to extend service life.
10. Replace orifice plates with magnetic flow meter for improved accuracy and reduced
headloss.

5.7 WATER SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
5.7.1 Hydraulic Model
A hydraulic model of the Easthampton water distribution system (WaterGEMS/EPANET modeling

software, Bentley Systems, Inc.) was updated as part of this project and a dynamic, extended
period, calibration of the model was developed. The model was used to evaluate existing
conditions in the distribution system and to assess the affects of different options for addressing
weaknesses or deficiencies identified in the modelling analysis.
Results from a steady state model are an instantaneous snapshot of the water system operation
and do not account for changes in water demand, pumping, and tank levels. The steady state
model was used to evaluate the available fire flow (AFF) at specific locations in the water system.
The extended period simulations were employed to analyze scenarios for water age, pump
operations and daily pressure patterns.
5.7.2 Fire Flow Availability
Available fire flow is the maximum flow rate that can be withdrawn from the distribution system at
a location under specific supply and demand conditions while maintaining at least 20 psi residual
system pressure. The AFF was evaluated with the hydraulic model at all locations in the City’s
water distribution system. Demand conditions were set at the 2035 peak hour, which was
calculated by multiplying the 2035 maximum day demand times the current peaking factor of 1.75.
Then the single largest source, the water treatment plant, was turned off while the other sources,
Brook Street and Nonotuck Wells remained on. The tank levels were set to normal low operating
levels based on SCADA data (Peaceful Valley at 396 ft. and Drury Lane at 386 ft.).
Estimating needed fire flow involves evaluating a building’s location, spacing, construction type
and other factors leading to increased combustibility and risk. According to the Insurance
Services Organization, a typical one- or two-family home needs fire flow from 500 gpm to 1,400
GPM depending on how much space is between neighboring homes. Needed fire flow for one-
and two-family homes with a spacing of 31 to 100 ft. is 750 GPM. Excluding dead-end mains less
than 6-inches diameter, only three locations show AFF to be less than 750 gpm. The AFF at
representative locations across the City, including locations expected to have high needed fire
flow (NFF) values, such as schools, are shown in Table 5-12.

Table 5-12
Summary of Fire Flows at Key Locations
Available Fire
Location Notes
Flow (GPM)
White Brook Middle School 1,570 School
Easthampton High School 2,750 School
Williston Northampton School 2,540 School
Truehart Drive 810 Southwest of City, dead end
South of City, representative of
Beyer Drive and Campbell Drive 4,035 neighborhood near Peaceful
Valley Tank
Wilder Ave 400 Northeast of City, dead end
Florence Rd. and Bassett Brook Rd. 545 Lathrop Retirement Community
Based on this evaluation the following distribution system upgrades are recommended:
• Water main upgrade on Lyman Street, from Ballard Street to Florence Road, to increase
AFF for the Lathrop Retirement Community.
• Water main upgrade on East Street from Ferry Street to Wilder Avenue to increase AFF
for the area east of Underwood Avenue, including Wilder Avenue and Symanski Avenue.
• The 4-inch diameter water main in Garfield and Williston Avenues experiences low AFF
given its small diameter. There is a parallel 12-inch diameter water main in these streets.
It is recommended that the City transfer any hydrants currently connected to the 4-inch
diameter main to the 12-inch main.
5.7.3 System Pressures
Typical pressures in the City’s water system range from approximately 40 pounds per square inch
(psi) to 120 psi. About 80% of the system has pressures within the range of 60 to 100 psi. Figure
5-4 shows the average daily system pressure distribution across the water network under several
of the water demand conditions evaluated. The similarity in the pressures across all three demand
scenarios shows that Easthampton’s water distribution system is hydraulically robust, meaning it
has capacity to meet varying water demands while maintaining relatively consistent water
pressure.

120
100
Pressure (psi)
80
60
Pressure under 2015 Average Day Demand (psi)
40 Pressure under 2015 Maximum Day Demand (psi)
Pressure under 2035 Maximum Day Demand (psi)
20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Number of Model Junctions
Figure 5-4
Distribution of Pressures under Various Demands
5.7.3.1 Low Pressure Evaluation
The MassDEP Guidelines for Public Water Systems are for normal working pressures in the
distribution system between approximately 60 – 80 psi and not less than 35 psi. To evaluate the
distribution system’s ability to maintain these pressures during the period of highest water
consumption on the maximum day, the water system model simulation consisted of an extended
period analysis of the peak hour of the maximum day water demand.
The model results showed the existing water distribution network to have capacity to deliver the
2015 and 2035 maximum day water demands at adequate pressure in all locations at all times in
the existing water distribution system with one minor exception. Park Hill Road at the City
boundary, showed pressure to be less than 35 psi for less than half an hour under the maximum
day 2035 demand scenario during peak hour demand between 7am and 8am. This location is in
the northwest section of the City, which is prone to the lowest pressures in the system due to its
high elevation and distance from the sources of water supply; however, the existing Russell Lane
booster pump station increases the pressures in this area to meet MassDEP guidelines.

5.7.3.2 High Pressure Evaluation
According to Massachusetts Uniform State Plumbing Code, maximum pressure at service

connections should be less than 80 psi. If higher pressure is provided by the water distribution
system, a pressure reducing valve must be installed. Approximately 65% of model nodes exceed
80 psi under average day demands. In the northeast section of the City, there are several streets,
including River Street, Old Stagecoach Road and the intersection of Fort Hill Road and River
Street, where the pressure during average day water demands exceeds 120 psi. Simulations
showed that these locations do not exceed 130 psi during average day demand condition. We
assume that pressure reducing valves (PRVs) are installed on a house-by-house basis to ensure
pressures of less than 80 psi into each house.
5.7.4 Water Age
Based on an evaluation of water age using extended period hydraulic model simulations under
the City’s typical water system operating conditions, water age in the two water tanks is an issue.
After a 60-day simulation using the current operating rules, the Drury Lane tank’s water has an
age of approximately 59.9 days, and the Peaceful Valley Tank’s water age under the same
scenario is approximately 30.3 days. The primary reason for the poor water age in the Drury Lane
Tank is that the overflow elevation is 386 feet NAVD88 while the Peaceful Valley Tank overflow
elevation is about 400 feet NAVD88. The result of this discrepancy is that almost all water that
flows out of storage to meet peak demand comes from Peaceful Valley, the higher elevation tank.
Outflow from the Drury Lane Tank occurs during rare extreme peaks in water demand or during
substantial fire flow events.
Eight alternatives were developed to evaluate potential changes to operational settings (modified
tank and pump operations) aimed at minimizing water age while maintaining appropriate fire flow
and pressure in the water system. Model simulations of the operational alternatives included
various changes to the supply pumping schedule and tank settings to minimize water age in the
system. The creation of a high pressure zone through the addition of a booster pump station near
the Drury Lane Tank was also included in the evaluation. Alternatives were evaluated using an
extended period simulation that tracks the age of water (which translates to water quality) in each
component of the distribution system over a long duration.
The volume-weighted average age of the water in all pipes and tanks was calculated to compare
the overall water age in the system for each of the alternatives. For example, if one pipe segment

contains 10,000 gallons and the water within has a maximum age of 5 days and another segment
contains 5,000 gallons of water that is 3 days old, the volume-weighted average age is: (10,000
gallons x 5 days + 5,000 gallons x 3 days) / 15,000 gallons = 4.3 days. By representing the overall
system age with a single value the relative differences can be evaluated. The volume-weighted
average water age for the existing operations and the three most effective operational alternatives
are shown in Table 5-13.
Table 5-13
Average Water Age for Selected Scenarios
Water Age, Volume-

Scenarios Weighted Average
(compared using 2015 ADD) (Days)
1 - Existing Conditions 39
2 - New Drury Lane BPS (expanded high pressure zone) 26
3 - Peaceful Valley Tank (PVT) low level set point reduced to 368 feet. 19
4 - Peaceful Valley Tank low level set point reduced to 368 feet. High
level reduced to 386 feet. All pumps run based on PVT level. 19
Model results predict that the operational alternatives to change set points in the Peaceful Valley
Tank would be more effective at reducing water age than installing a new Drury Lane Booster
Pump Station to create an expanded high pressure zone. These operational options both also
and have little cost impact to the City and neither negatively affect system pressures and AFF. A
trial period of Operational Alternative 4 (Alternative F in the Drinking Water Evaluation Report) is
recommended after the City reviews the fire flow impacts at sensitive locations with the fire
department.
5.7.5 Storage
Water distribution system storage is generally provided to meet peak demands of short duration,
allowing for more uniform water pumping rates. Storage also serves as an emergency supply in
the event of a water main break, or the temporary loss of a water supply or treatment facility. In
addition, water storage provides a reserve to meet firefighting requirements, and if properly
located, equalizes pressure throughout the distribution system.
5.7.5.1 Usable Storage
Storage in the Easthampton water distribution system is presently provided by two water tanks.
While the water storage tanks have a combined total volume of 6.21 MG, only water above the

elevation required to maintain a minimum pressure of 35 psi at all service connections is
considered usable. Based on the overflow elevations of the storage tanks (386 feet and 405 feet)
and the ground elevation of the highest customer (+/- 277 feet North American Datum of 1988
(NAVD88)), only 5.16 MG can be considered as useable storage. The size and capacity of these
storage tanks are summarized in Table 5-14.
Table 5-14
Water Distribution Storage
Base Maximum Usable

Diameter Storage
Tank Name Elevation Elevation Storage1
ft. ft. ft. MG MG
Drury Lane 143.5 353 386 3.99 3.39

Peaceful Valley 80 346 405 2.22 1.77
Total 6.21 5.16
MG = million gallons
1. Based on 277 feet, ground elevation of highest customer.
In order to maintain the MassDEP recommended minimum pressure of 35 psi at all service
connections, the water elevation in the tanks must be 358 feet NAVD88 or higher based on the
elevations of nearby properties. About 605,000 gallons in the Drury Lane Tank and 451,000
gallons in the Peaceful Valley Tank are below that elevation and not considered useable. This
volume is taking up space in the tanks and is not available for normal use
5.7.5.2 Peak Hourly Demand
Water storage should also be provided to meet peak hourly demands. The required storage to
meet current and projected peak hourly demands is presented in Table 5-15. Based on an
analysis of seven days of operational data, very little storage is used to equalize demand under
existing operations. Negligible volume turnover occurs in the Drury Lane Tank and the Peaceful
Valley Tank only fluctuates about 100,000 to 150,000 gallons each day, which is about 7 to 10
percent of the 2015 Maximum Day Demand.

Table 5-15
Projected Water Storage Requirements
Peak Hourly Fire

Maximum Daily Total Storage Total Usable
Year Demand Storage Protection
Demand (MDD) Required Storage
(30% MDD) Storage
2015 1.46 MGD 0.44 MG 0.63 MG 1.07 MG 5.16 MG
2035 1.77 MGD 0.53 MG 0.63 MG 1.16 MG 5.16 MG
5.7.5.3 Fire Protection
The quantity of storage necessary for fire protection is based in part on the fire flow requirements
established by Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). Criteria established by ISO are used by
insurance companies to set fire insurance rates. Based on the typical ISO criteria of 3,500 gallons
per minute (gpm) for a duration of three hours, the volume of water required to meet fire flow
protection in Easthampton is 630,000 gallons.
5.7.5.4 Storage Adequacy
The total storage required is the sum of the storage necessary for fire protection and the storage
needed to meet peak hourly demand. The total required water storage for the year 2035 is
estimated to be 1.16 million gallons (Table 5-15). Easthampton's current useable water storage
is 5.16 million gallons (see Table 5-15), thus the existing water storage is expected to meet both
peak demands and fire protection requirements through 2035.
5.7.6 Mt. Tom Tank
The Mount Tom Tank on the east side of the City is currently inactive. The benefits of restoring
or rebuilding this tank were evaluated with steady state and extended period simulations in the
hydraulic model. Fire flow and water age impacts were assessed. Based on the evaluation it is
recommended that Easthampton complete the abandonment of the Mount Tom Tank because it
is not needed. The existing water system storage, without the Mount Tom Tank online, exceeds
the required storage through the year 2035. By permanently abandoning the tank, it will reduce
the possibility of unintended system contamination. The water quality on Reservation Road
should also be sampled and tested near the ends of the water main. The Mount Tom Tank was
fed by a 12-inch and a 10-inch water main in that street. Now that these water mains are dead-
ends, they are likely oversized and causing stagnant water.

5.7.7 Pipe Replacement Recommendations
The GIS database of the drinking water distribution system was updated as part of this project
and includes the location of hydrants, valves, water mains, materials, diameters, and age, where
known. Pipe breakage is a leading cause of unaccounted for water and results in the need for
staff to scramble to make emergency repairs. Recommendations for prioritized pipe
replacements were developed to allow Easthampton to take a proactive approach to maintaining
the distribution system and work towards reducing the number and severity of pipe breaks.
The age, condition and material of the pipes in the distribution system and the fire flow capacity
and water age results of the hydraulic model were evaluated to prioritize pipe replacements. Staff
also added pipes with a known history of recent pipe breakage. Based on expected failure the
water mains were prioritized using the following criteria, in order of replacement need:
1. Galvanized Iron (GI or GAV), 1-2 inches

2. Cast iron (CI) ca. 1940s to 1970 (centrifugally cast)
• 6-10 inches
• Then 10 plus inches
3. CI ca. 1880s to 1940s (pit cast)
• 6-10 inches
• Then 10 plus inches
4. Asbestos cement (AC)
5. Ductile Iron (DI)
6. PVC
Based on the evaluation the following water main projects are recommended as high priority:
• Replace 7,500 feet of poor condition 8-inch water main on East Street with new 8-inch
water main to increase the AFF from under 400 gpm to 775 gpm.
• Replace 2,000 feet of old 6-inch water main on Lyman Street and Florence Road with new
8-inch water main to increase the available fire flow at Lathrop Retirement Community
from about 545 gpm to 820 gpm.
• Upgrade the 6-inch water main on Park Street from Greenwood Street to Payson Street
to increase AFF.

• Rehabilitate if possible, or replace, the 12-inch asbestos concrete water main on Mechanic
Street as this location has experienced numerous recent breaks.
• Replace the 4-inch cast iron water main on Adams Street in-kind as this location has
experienced numerous recent breaks.
The pipe materials, diameters, year of installation, and road names for water mains identified at
the top of the priority list are included in Table 5-16. A full prioritized list of all pipes is included in
Appendix Q. The water main replacement order should be amended regularly based on any new
data regarding material, year of installation or condition.
Table 5-16
Priority of Replacement for Distribution Pipes
Diameter
Pipe Material Year Notes
(inches)
Galvanized 1-2 1940s Fugere Court, Johnson Avenue, St. James Avenue,
Wilton Road
Norton Street, N. Hampshire Street, Reservation
2 unknown
Road
4 1917 Briggs Street
6 1912-13 1st Avenue, Florence Road, Loudville Road, Lyman
Street
Cast iron
4 1930s Elliott Street, Garfield Street, Summer Street
Adams Street, Chapel Street, Clifford Street, School
Street, Everett Street, Gaston Street, Gaugh Street,
4 unknown Lake Street, Lincoln Street, McKinley Avenue, Pine
Street, Pleasant Street, School, Ward Avenue, Water
Street, West Lake Street, Winter Street
5.7.8 Other water Distribution System Recommendations
5.7.8.1 Flushing
The implementation of a City-wide unidirectional flushing program is recommended. Flushing is

a key way to improve water quality in the distribution system by scouring and removing the
sediment from pipes. This tool is especially useful in pipes that normally see low velocities, such
as small-diameter and dead-end water mains. It is important that the sequence of valve closings
and hydrant flows be conducted to achieve a minimum velocity in all parts of the system. The

hydraulic model created as a part of this evaluation is an important first step in creating a flushing
program because it can be used to predict the effects of proposed valve closings and hydrant
flows on system velocities.
5.7.8.2 Tank Cleaning
Due to the long residence time of water in the Drury Lane Tank, unsanitary conditions are likely.
It is recommended that the City establish a plan to clean the interior of the Drury Lane Tank.
Cleaning should be undertaken in conjunction with operational changes to reduce residence time.
5.7.8.3 Tank Mixing and Residual Control Systems
The installation of passive mixing systems in the Drury Lane and Peaceful Valley Tanks to
enhance water quality is recommended. Mixing should be undertaken in conjunction with
operational changes. Additionally, we recommends that the City evaluate a residual chlorine
control system for Drury Lane Tank to ensure the water in the Drury Lane Tank does not become
contaminated during the long residence time. Such a system would meter the disinfectant
residual level in the tank and add disinfectant as needed to maintain a safe level.
5.7.8.4 New Drury Lane Tank
We recommend that the City study replacement of the existing 4 MG Drury Lane Tank with a
smaller tank at a higher elevation. This would improve water quality and maintain available fire
flow capabilities. Many of the issues highlighted in this analysis are caused by the Drury Lane
Tank. Design considerations should include matching overflow elevation with the Peaceful Valley
Tank, reducing the volume to less than 1 MG, and minimizing unusable volume.
5.8 SUMMARY OF HIGH PRIORITY WATER SUPPLY RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to meet long-term water demand the City must have adequate water supply and
treatment, reliable pumping capacity, and adequate distribution system capacity. The following
recommendations are high priority items as a result of the potential impact on reliable capacity
and adequacy of the distribution system, as well as requirements set forth by the MassDEP under
the City’s WMA Permit:
1. Install a redundant blower at the PTA to provide redundancy and reliable capacity to the
treatment plant.

2. Implement flow pacing at all chlorine dosing locations.
3. Upgrade 2,000 feet of 6-inch water main on Lyman Street from Ballard Street to Florence
Road with 8-inch water main to increase AFF for the Lathrop Retirement Community.
4. Upgrade 8-inch water main on East Street from Ferry Street to Wilder Avenue with new
8-inch to increase AFF for the area east of Underwood Avenue.
5. Modify water supply operations in order to reduce water age in the storage tanks
6. Implement demand management and conservation measures to meet the requirements
set forth in the City’s WMA Permit.
7. Check the water quality on Reservation Road near the ends of the water main.

6 STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Stormwater infrastructure serves several important functions which can be broadly organized into
two groups: drainage and water quality. The original goal of stormwater infrastructure was to
remove water from roadways and other improved surfaces to prevent icing and flooding. The
systems were designed to collect runoff and quickly discharge it to the nearest water course.
Now that we better understand the role of stormwater as a transport mechanism for non-point
source pollution, the scope of stormwater infrastructure design has expanded to include water
quality treatment, groundwater infiltration, and peak flow attenuation. Improvements to the quality
of stormwater runoff directly impact Easthampton’s waters, including Nashawannuck Pond, the
Manhan River, and the Connecticut River.
The stormwater infrastructure component of the IWRMP focuses on mapping the existing
stormwater infrastructure, identifying key areas for infrastructure improvements, documenting the
drivers for stormwater management improvements, and positioning the City for compliance with
new stormwater permit requirements.
6.2 STORMWATER INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stormwater is a necessary City utility, and adequate operation and maintenance is critical to
protect public health and safety of residents, promote clean drinking water, protect the natural
environment and to ensure operation of local businesses. To assist with proper operation and
maintenance, it is important to understand what stormwater assets exist within the community.
As part of this IWRMP, the City’s stormwater management system was mapped in GIS, using a
combination of record drawings, City staff input and field observation. Based on the mapping
completed, Easthampton is responsible for the following stormwater infrastructure:
• 2,874 catch basins
• 191 outfalls
• 71 miles of drain lines
• 80 miles of publicly maintained roadways

• 54 culverts
• 3 hydrodynamic separators
• 2 dams
The GIS mapping included development of a database with attributes for various features
associated with the stormwater system (Appendix R). Of the three utility systems mapped
(wastewater, water, and stormwater), the stormwater system had the least detailed information
available. In order to make the best use of the available mapping budget, the stormwater mapping
focused on identifying outfalls and connectivity of the catchbasins and piped systems to the
outfalls. The attributes defining the stormwater features were limited to what was available from
the limited record drawings that included stormwater infrastructure. The City will continue to
update mapping and populate the attributes based on field observations. Total counts may
change slightly as infrastructure is field verified and mapping is improved.
City staff has noted that there are no significant areas of flooding as a result of inadequate
drainage infrastructure. The City has a policy of improving stormwater infrastructure during road
construction projects where necessary.
The City DPW is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater system, which
includes catch basin cleaning, street sweeping, municipal parking lot sweeping and repairs as
needed. The primary concern with the physical condition of the stormwater system is aging pipes
and culverts.
6.2.1.1 BMPs
The City is also responsible for operation and maintenance of structural Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that were installed within subdivisions where the City accepted the roadways
and related infrastructure. Sixteen (16) stormwater management BMPs were mapped off
roadways that the City maintains.
On December 3, 2015, Tighe & Bond and Kleinfelder performed an inspection of select
stormwater management BMPs. In general, the BMPs were not maintained, and the basin areas
contained debris, leaf litter, and shrub and tree vegetation. Certain BMPs located adjacent to

residential yards were adopted by the adjacent homeowners who mowed and generally
maintained the BMPs.
In addition, the City maintains BMPs that were installed to improve water quality entering
Nashawannuck Pond, including an off-line sedimentation basin on Broad Brook and a gabion weir
on White Brook.
To better determine the potential impact of the stormwater system on the natural environment,
the ultimate receiving waters for each outfall were identified in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1
Outfalls and Receiving Waterbodies
Waterbody Segment that Receives Number of Outfalls Into

Flow from the MS4 Receiving Water Segment
Bassett Brook 8
Broad Brook 22
Brickyard Brook 17
Connecticut River 2
Hannum Brook 10
Lower Mill Pond 18
Manhan River 51
Nashawannuck Pond 10
North Branch of Manhan River 17
Rubber Thread Pond 4
White Brook 16
Wilton Brook 13
Wooded Area 3
Field investigations of 140 outfalls were conducted in the spring of 2002 as part of compliance
activities under the 2003 Small MS4 General Permit. Pipe material, diameter, and condition were
recorded among other identifying details. Samples were collected from outfalls with flow and
analyzed for ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, specific conductivity, and detergents. The inspection and
sampling results are presented in a February 2004 report, Assessment of Stormwater
Management Systems (Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc.(BEC)), included in the IDDE
Plan (Appendix T of this IWRMP Report).

Based on the 2002 outfall field investigations and water quality sampling, the 2004 report ranked
outfalls into five pollutant level categories. Priority Levels from 1-5 were assigned to each sampled
outfall site, with Level 1 indicating the highest pollutant levels and Level 4 indicating the lowest.
Outfalls not flowing at the time of the investigation were assigned a Priority Level of 5. The criteria
for prioritizing the outfalls were based on relative levels of water quality constituents such as
detergents and ammonia or nitrate nitrogen rather than absolute threshold values, as presented
in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2
2004 Outfall Priority
2004 Priority Priority Level Criteria # of

Level Outfalls
Presence of detergents and presence of elevated levels of ammonia
1 (highest) 4
or nitrate nitrogen
1. Presence of detergents and presence of elevated nitrate
2 concentration or any detected ammonia nitrate; or 9
2. Elevated levels of ammonia nitrogen (>0.6 mg/L)
1. Presence of detergents in low levels (<0.2 mg/L) but no other
constituent at a significant concentration; or
2. Presence of nitrite nitrogen in low levels (<0.03 mg/L) but no other
3 19
constituent at a significant concentration; or
3. Elevated nitrate nitrogen (>3 mg/L) but no other constituent at a
significant concentration.
No constituent at relatively elevated concentration, with possible
4 32
exception of elevated specific conductance.
5 No dry weather flow 76
Total 140
Additional outfalls were identified during the GIS mapping development. The IDDE Plan classified
the 191 identified outfalls in Easthampton into priority investigation categories identified in section
2.3.4.7.a.ii. of the 2016 Small MS4 General Permit (Problem, High, Low, and Excluded) based on
the rankings and data from the 2004 report, and characteristics of the defined initial catchment
area. Per section 2.3.4.7.a.iii. of the 2016 Small MS4 General Permit, catchment area
characteristics used to priority rank outfalls into the above categories are:
• Past discharge complaints and reports.
• Poor receiving water quality- the following guidelines are recommended to identify waters
as having a high illicit discharge potential:
o exceeding water quality standards for bacteria;
o ammonia levels above 0.5 mg/l;

o surfactants levels greater than or equal to 0.25 mg/l.
• Density of places with a potential to generate pollutants that could contribute to illicit
discharges.
• Age of development and infrastructure – Industrial areas greater than 40 years old and
areas where the sanitary sewer system is more than 40 years old will probably have a
high illicit discharge potential. Developments 20 years or younger will probably have a low
illicit discharge potential.
• Sewer conversion – contributing catchment areas that were once serviced by septic
systems, but have been converted to sewer connections may have a high illicit discharge
potential.
• Historic combined sewer systems – contributing areas that were once serviced by a
combined sewer system, but have been separated may have a high illicit discharge
potential.
• Surrounding density of aging septic systems – Septic systems thirty years or older in
residential land use areas are prone to have failures and may have a high illicit discharge
• potential.
• Culverted streams – any river or stream that is culverted for distances greater than a
simple roadway crossing may have a high illicit discharge potential.
• Water quality limited waterbodies that receive a discharge from the MS4 or waters with
approved TMDLs applicable to the permittee, where illicit discharges have the potential to
contain the pollutant identified as the cause of the water quality impairment.
The IDDE Plan incorporated the 2004 report results and rankings by categorizing Priority Level 1
outfalls as Problem Outfalls, Priority Level 2 and 3 outfalls as High Priority Outfalls, and Priority
Level 4 and 5 outfalls as Low Priority Outfalls. Some outfalls identified in the 2004 report as Level
4 were categorized as High Priority due to their high conductance results and location within
densely developed older sections of the community. No outfalls were categorized as Excluded.
Priority outfall rankings are summarized in Table 6-3 below.

Table 6-3
2018 Outfall Priority
2018 Priority Priority Level Criteria # of

Level Outfalls
Outfalls with known or suspected contributions of illicit discharges
Problem Outfall based on existing information, including any outfalls where previous 4
screening indicates likely sewer input
Outfalls that have not been classified as Problem Outfalls and that are
either discharging to an area of concern to public health due to
proximity of public beaches, recreational areas, drinking water
High 76
supplies or shellfish beds, or have been determined to be high priority
based on the characteristics of the catchment area or other available
information
Outfalls determined to be low priority based on the characteristics of
Low 111
the catchment area or other available information
Outfalls with no potential for illicit discharges may be excluded from
the IDDE program. This category is limited to roadway drainage in
undeveloped areas with no dwellings and no sanitary sewers;
Excluded drainage for athletic fields, parks or undeveloped green space and 0
associated parking without services; or cross-country drainage
alignments through undeveloped land that neither cross nor are in
proximity to sanitary sewer alignments
Total 191
6.3 FUTURE STORMWATER PLANNING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
Drivers for future improvements to the stormwater infrastructure will be redevelopment and
regulatory. These drivers are described in more detail below.
6.3.1 Future Development
As noted in Section 3.4.2, for the purposes of ensuring adequate infrastructure capacity in the
future, the estimated population in 20 years (2035) is assumed to be in line with the PVPC
projection of 17,540 persons, a 9.4% increase over the 2014 population of 16,066.
According to the City Planning Department, Easthampton is close to build-out now. New
development may occur on vacant lots, but it is anticipated that development within the planning
period will be focused on redevelopment and infill. New development will be subject to
compliance with increased stormwater management requirements through the MassDEP’s
Stormwater Management Standards and regulations, as well as the provisions of the NPDES

permitting program as noted in the next section. Generally, redevelopment projects are required
to make improvements to the existing on-site stormwater system. New development will be
required to meet criteria all MassDEP’s stormwater standards, including providing for groundwater
infiltration and stormwater treatment.
6.3.2 Regulatory Requirements
Through the NPDES program, the EPA nationally regulates the discharge of stormwater runoff
that is transported into local water bodies via Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s).
EPA’s MS4 stormwater program was enacted in two phases:
• Phase I, issued in 1990, requires medium and large cities or certain counties with
populations of 100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater
discharges.
• Phase II, issued in 1999, requires regulated small MS4s in urbanized areas, as well as
small MS4s outside the urbanized areas that are designated by the permitting authority,
to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. Easthampton has been
authorized as a small MS4 since 2003.
Urbanized Areas (also known as “regulated areas”) are defined by the latest United States
decennial census. On March 26, 2012, the Census Bureau published the final listing of urbanized
areas for the 2010 census. An urbanized area encompasses a densely settled territory that
consists of core census block groups or blocks that have a population of at least 1,000 people per
square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people
per square mile or are included to link outlying densely settled territory with a densely settled
1
urban core.
1
U.S. EPA. Fact Sheet: Draft General Permits for Stormwater Discharges From Small Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems in Massachusetts. September 2014. For a complete definition of Urbanized Area see Census
Bureau; Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census, 76 Federal Register 53030 (August 24, 2011)
http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/fedreg/fedregv76n164.pdf.

Figure 6-1 shows Easthampton’s
Urbanized Area based on the 2000 and
2010 census listings. According to EPA
Region 1, the area covered by both the
2000 census and the 2010 census are
regulated by EPA under the MS4
program. Therefore, Easthampton is
considered nearly entirely regulated,
with the exception of the eastern portion
of the City between East Street and the
Mount Tom State Reservation and small
areas along the western municipal line.
The Phase II regulations require a small

MS4 to implement its program in the
urbanized area. However, EPA
encourages MS4s to implement their
Storm Water Management Plan in the
entire jurisdiction, especially for areas
Figure 6-1
that discharge to waters that are subject Urbanized Area of the City of Easthampton per
2 the 2000 and 2010 Census.
to approved TMDLs . In order to meet its
water quality goals, Easthampton has and will continue to address stormwater in the entire
community.
The City of Easthampton meets EPA’s regulatory threshold for Phase II, and therefore is required
to be covered under a NPDES permit for its stormwater discharges from the MS4 in its Urbanized
Area. The City of Easthampton is charged by the EPA with operating and maintaining its MS4 to
manage stormwater runoff, as well as to protect public health and safety, preserve environmental
resources, and safeguard City character.
In Massachusetts, the EPA Region 1 and the MassDEP jointly administer the municipal
stormwater program. EPA and MassDEP originally authorized Easthampton to discharge
2
U.S. EPA, 2014.

stormwater in 2003 under a NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, known as the “Small MS4 General Permit.” Under this
permit, the City has developed and implemented a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP)
to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff.
The Small MS4 Program contains six (6) elements called minimum control measures (MCMs)
that, when implemented, should result in a significant reduction in pollutants discharged into
receiving waters. The MCMs are:
1. Public Education and Outreach;
2. Public Involvement and Participation;
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE);
4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control;
5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management; and
6. Good Housekeeping and Pollution Prevention.
The 2003 Small MS4 Permit expired in May 2008, but remained in full force and effect until the
replacement permit issued on April 13, 2016 became effective on July 1, 2018. The reissued
NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Small MS4 in Massachusetts
substantially increases stormwater management requirements and mandates specific timelines
for compliance. A draft Stormwater Management Plan was developed as part of this IWRMP to
be consistent with the requirements of the 2016 Small MS4 General Permit for Massachusetts
(Appendix S of this IWRMP Report). Once implemented, the Stormwater Management Plan will
satisfy the requirements for compliance under the Small MS4 General Permit.
6.3.3 2003 MS4 Permit
The City of Easthampton has developed and implemented a stormwater management program
in compliance with the 2003 Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit. The following paragraphs
include brief descriptions of current practices the City undertakes as part of its Stormwater
Management Program.

6.3.3.1 MCM 1: Public Education and Outreach and MCM 2: Public Involvement and
Participation
The City of Easthampton has completed a number of projects and activities to promote public
education and participation in stormwater pollution reduction efforts in compliance with the 2003
Small MS4 General Permit for stormwater. Activities conducted during the 2003 permit window
included:
• Drain Markers. The DPW provided assistance and encouragement to a local Boy Scout
Troop for a program to spray paint storm drain markers near drains in the City. The
markers identified the drains and indicated that only rain should enter the drains.
• Rain Barrel Program. The City sponsors a Rain Barrel Program allowing residents to
purchase rain barrels at a discounted price. Rain barrels can help conserve water and
reduce stormwater runoff into storm drains. The City provided the distribution of the rain
barrels to the community. The program ran in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017, and was
advertised on the City Website, on water and sewer bills, on the Planning Department’s
Facebook page, and through press releases that were picked up by the Daily Hampshire
Gazette and MassLive. In total 255 barrels have been purchased, 164 of them in 2017
(108 of those were Easthampton residents).
• Public Service Announcements. Easthampton belongs to the Connecticut River
Stormwater Committee, a coalition of 17 communities in the Pioneer Valley whose goal is
to promote education and outreach about stormwater impacts on the Connecticut River.
The group sponsored public service announcements (PSAs) on three local radio stations
(93.9 The River, WHMP, and Lazer 99.3) to educate the public about problems associated
with stormwater and ways to reduce stormwater pollution impacts. The announcements
were 30 seconds each and ran from April 2, 2018 through April 19, 2018, airing a total of
183 times (http://www.pvpc.org/content/psa-educating-valley-residents-stormwater-hit-
local-ariwaves).
The PSA provided information on stormwater’s role in transporting fertilizer, oil, pesticides, dirt,
animal waste, and other pollutants into catch basins and pipes, then into local ponds, lakes,
streams, and rivers. The PSA directed listeners to a website (http://soakuptherain.pvpc.org/) that
provides information on how community members can reduce stormwater impacts through the
construction of rain gardens, directing downspouts toward lawns, installing rain barrels and rain
gardens, as well as using porous pavement.

The following fact sheets are available on the Soak Up the Rain website:
• Rain water harvesting
• Rain garden bioretention
Other resources available through the site are:

• Pioneer Valley Green Infrastructure Plan
(www.sustainableknowledgecorridor.org/site/content/green-infrastructure),
• EPA Soak up the Rain (www.epa.gov/region1/soakuptherain/),
• NEMO at University of Connecticut (nemo.uconn.edu/),
• Stormwater Center at University of New Hampshire (www.unh.edu/unhsc/),
• Northeast Regional Climate Center at Cornell University (www.nrcc.cornell.edu/), and
• Extreme Precipitation in New York and New England Project (precip.eas.cornell.edu/).
The City of Easthampton provides notice of public meetings in compliance with State and Local
public meeting notice requirements, and there are opportunities for residents of all ages to
participate in Easthampton’s stormwater program and overall environmental stewardship. City
staff and local citizen groups are actively involved in monitoring the water quality of Easthampton’s
surface waters through community wetland clean-up days. The City has also utilized the materials
and processes of developing this IWRMP to provide public outreach on stormwater management.
6.3.3.2 MCM 3: Illicit Discharge and Detection Elimination
The City has satisfied the mapping requirements of the 2003 General Permit by mapping outfall
locations throughout the City. The City has also mapped storm drain systems and sanitary sewer
systems into a GIS system.
The city of Easthampton incorporated regulations that prohibit illicit discharges (Chapter 12,
Article VIII, Illicit Discharge Detection And Elimination Ordinance) into the City Ordinances in
2011. The Department of Public Works serves as the enforcement agency. City Staff have been
trained on illicit discharges and stormwater outfall investigations and continue to look for the
presence of illicit discharges.

6.3.3.3 MCM 4: Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control and MCM 5: Post
Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and
Redevelopment
Chapter 12, Article VII, Stormwater Management Ordinance requires that all land disturbing
activities greater than or equal to one acre obtain a stormwater permit, meet performance
stormwater standards and develop a stormwater management plan. The ordinance includes
monetary penalties, requirements for installation of structural and non-structural BMPs, long term
operation and maintenance of the BMPs, considerations to address water quality, and inspection
procedures as well as erosion and sediment control guidelines. The ordinance also requires
review of developments that impact between 10,000 square feet and 1 acre by the Building
Inspector.
Procedures for site plan reviews are established and enforced via the City of Easthampton Zoning
Ordinance. Site plan reviews by the Planning Board, include plan review by the Building Inspector,
Board of Health, Board of Selectmen, Conservation Commission, Highway Department, Fire
Department and Police Department. Permit enforcement includes regular inspections and
communication with the developer to ensure adherence to local requirements during construction.
The Stormwater Management Ordinance also contains requirements for post-construction
stormwater management.
6.3.3.4 MCM 6: Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping
The City implements numerous actions to reduce pollutant runoff from municipal operations
including through the implementation of a Spill Prevention and Control Plan, at select facilities,
catch basin cleaning, street sweeping, proper storage of materials, regular inspections of facilities,
and staff training. A formal inspection program of the storm sewer system is in place, including
maintenance of records of repair, maintaining, and construction.
6.3.3.5 Other 2003 MS4 General Permit Requirements
Groundwater Recharge and Infiltration

Through implementation of the Erosion and Sediment Control for Stormwater Management
regulations, the City evaluates site conditions and design and promotes infiltration BMPs to the
maximum extent practicable. Land development activities that require a stormwater management
permit must submit a Stormwater Report to document compliance with the ten Massachusetts
Stormwater Management Standards. The City also requires that site plans and landscape plans

for all proposed projects must take appropriate steps to prevent pollution of surface or
groundwater, and to maximize groundwater recharge.
Public Drinking Water Supply Requirements

In its Zoning Bylaw, Easthampton has an Aquifer Protection District to ensure adequate drinking
water quality and quantity, preserve and protect drinking water supplies, conserve natural
resources, and prevent contamination of the environment. The City has inventoried the outfalls
within these areas and considers water supply sources and protection areas a priority for
stormwater management.
Record Keeping
The City of Easthampton maintains stormwater management program records and summarizes
the actions taken by MCM in the annual report to EPA.
Discharges to Water Quality Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Allocations
Easthampton’s stormwater program is addressing many of the current requirements for
discharges to impaired water bodies. Through implementation of its current stormwater program,
the City is controlling the discharge of the pollutants of concern.
6.3.4 2016 MS4 Permit
EPA released a draft of a “next generation” Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit for public
comment on September 30, 2014. Following the public comment period and public hearings
(which ended February 29, 2015), EPA responded to comments and finalized and promulgated
the permit. The final permit was issued on April 13, 2016, with an effective date of July 1, 2017.
On June 29, 2017, the EPA administratively postponed the effective date of the permit for one
year to July 1, 2018. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted within 90 days of the effective
date of the permit. A Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted within one year of the
effective date of the permit.
The new General Permit is intended to be more prescriptive than the 2003 General Permit, and
to build upon the regulations already in place. The new General Permit substantially increases
stormwater management requirements and mandates specific timelines for compliance. A few of
the major differences for each minimum control measure are summarized in the following points:

• Public Education and Outreach: More specific messages required and prescriptive
deadlines compared to the 2003 General Permit.
• Public Involvement and Participation: Specific requirements to provide opportunity for
public review and input on SWMP annually.
• Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program: Add interconnections to
the outfall inventory. Delineate catchment areas and prioritize catchment investigations.
Perform dry weather screening and sampling of high priority and low priority MS4
interconnections and outfall by the end of Year 3. Perform wet weather screening in the
spring for the catchments that indicate the presence of one or more System Vulnerability
Factors. Complete catchment investigations. For impaired waters without TMDLs,
implement a multi-step approach to address the discharges including BMPs, source
identification, and an evaluation of retrofit feasibility.
• Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control: If it does not already exist, add
inspection and enforcement to the site plan review procedure.
• Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment: For new
development, retain the first inch of runoff from all impervious surfaces on site, or provide
pollutant removal with a BMP. For redevelopment, retain the first 0.80 inches of runoff
from all impervious surfaces on site or provide pollutant removal with a BMP. Offsite
mitigation may be used for redevelopment projects.
• Good Housekeeping and Pollution Prevention: Develop a program to repair and
rehabilitate the MS4 infrastructure. Sweep/clean municipal streets once in the spring.
Include all activities that occur at a municipal facility and potential pollutants associated
with each activity in the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for the facility.
The SWMP prepared as part of the IWRMP includes a table that lists BMPs completed under the
2003 Small MS4 General Permit, BMPs included in the Notice of Intent and SWMP to comply with
the 2016 Small MS4 General Permit, and names and titles of people responsible for program
implementation.
6.3.5 2016 MS4 Permit NOI
A NOI must be submitted within 90 days of the effective date of the 2016 MA Small MS4 General
Permit. The final permit was issued on April 13, 2016; with an effective date of July 1, 2017. On
June 29, 2017, the EPA administratively postponed the effective date of the permit for one year

to July 1, 2018. Based on the administratively postponed effective date, the NOI must be
submitted by October 1, 2018 (as September 29th falls on a Saturday, EPA has indicated that
NOIs will be due on October 1st).
The NOI consist of four parts:

• Part I: General Conditions - contact information, eligibility determination, and 2003 MS4
General Permit compliance status.
• Part II: Summary of Receiving Waters – number of outfalls to waterbody segments
receiving flow from the MS4 and applicable impairments.
• Part III: Stormwater Management Program Summary – BMPs, responsible parties,
measurable goals, and beginning year of BMP implementation.
• Part IV: Notes and Additional Information – explanation of determinations that sections of
2.2.1 and 2.2.2 may not be applicable to the MS4, summary of eligibility determinations.
Tighe & Bond has drafted an NOI in accordance with 2016 MA Small MS4 General Permit
requirements (see attachments to Appendix S).

6.3.6 2016 MS4 Permit SWMP
The Stormwater Management Program

(SWMP) is the document used to describe
and detail the activities and measures
that will be implemented to meet the
terms and conditions of the U.S. EPA’s
General Permits for Stormwater
Discharges from Small Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems in
Massachusetts (“Small MS4 General
Permit”). The SWMP should be
updated and/or modified during the
permit term as the City’s activities are
modified, changed or updated to meet
permit conditions during the permit
term. A draft SWMP has been
developed and provided under
separate cover.
Other requirements of the Small MS4 General Permit, such as a NOI, Authorization to Discharge
letter, and documentation showing Endangered Species Act and Historic Properties eligibility
criteria have been certified, are located in the Appendices of the SWMP.
6.3.6.1 2016 MS4 Permit MCM 1: Public Education and Outreach
The 2016 Small MS4 General Permit has increased public educational requirements that include
two separate messages for each of four different audiences, for a total of eight (8) messages in a
5-year permit term. Easthampton plans to meet these goals through continued participation in
the Connecticut River Stormwater Committee and continuation of the rain barrel program on a
schedule that remains to be determined. The Connecticut River Stormwater Committee has
created a website (http://soakuptherain.pvpc.org/) to promote stormwater information that applies
on a regional level. The website provides a hub for forthcoming publications and media outreach
products or information.

Educational topics to be presented to the targeted audiences through multi-media methods as
part of the MCM 1 BMPs will include but are not limited to those in Part 2.3.2.d.i-iv of the 2016
Small MS4 General Permit. The City of Easthampton Department of Public Works (DPW),
Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health (BOH) will be responsible for
modification and distribution of education materials developed by the PVPC Connecticut River
Stormwater Committee (CRSWC).
2016 MA Small MS4 MCM 1 Objectives BMPs/Progress to Date
Education and outreach to targeted audiences Anticipate that educational materials for
(residents; businesses, institutions and distribution to required stakeholders will be
commercial facilities; developers; and industrial developed through PVPC CRSWC
facilities)
6.3.6.2 2016 MS4 Permit MCM 2: Public Involvement and Participation
DPW and City Engineer will be responsible for providing opportunities for public review and
involvement in the City of Easthampton’s SWMP.
Public Review The SWMP will be made available for public

review at the DPW office
Public Participation Public opportunities for involvement and

participation in the City of Easthampton’s SWMP
will be provided through holding annual public
meeting/hearing to solicit public input on the
annual report submission to the EPA and the
City’s stormwater management programs.

6.3.6.3 2016 MS4 Permit MCM 3: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
The BMPs implemented or proposed to be implemented to meet the 2016 MA Small MS4 MCM
3 objectives are described in the referenced written IDDE Plan sections. The IDDE Plan for the
City of Easthampton has been developed (Appendix T) and is an appendix to the SWMP. The
City of Easthampton DPW is the responsible department for implementation of the IDDE related
BMPs described below.
Inventory of All Identified Sanitary Sewer Identified SSOs are discussed in IDDE Plan
Overflows (SSOs) within Previous 5 Years Section 3
Storm Sewer System Map Storm Sewer System Mapping is described in
IDDE Plan Section 4
Develop Written IDDE Program The written IDDE Program (Plan) for the City of
Easthampton has been developed and is
included in the SWMP and as Appendix T
Dry Weather Outfall and Interconnection Dry weather outfall and interconnection screening
Screening and Sampling procedures are described in IDDE Plan Section
8.1
Catchment Investigations Catchment investigation priority ranking and
procedures are described in IDDE Plan Sections
7 and 8.2
Employee Training Employee training occurs annually, as described
in IDDE Plan Section 10.2
Ongoing Screening Ongoing wet and dry screening procedures are
detailed in IDDE Plan Section 8.1
6.3.6.4 2016 MS4 Permit MCM 4: Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
In compliance with the 2003 permit, the City promulgated Chapter 12, Article VII, Stormwater
Management Ordinance to regulate construction period and post-construction stormwater
controls. Additional requirements and written procedures will be incorporated into the City’s
existing Stormwater Management Ordinance. The City of Easthampton, Conservation
Commission, City Council, DPW, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will be
responsible for ordinance modifications and enactment. Red-line version of the Stormwater
Management Ordinance is provided in Appendix U.

Site Inspection and Enforcement of Erosion and Written procedures for site inspection and
Sediment Control (ESC) Measures enforcement procedures SOP 5: “Construction
Site Inspection Written Procedures” and
CMRSWC SOP 9: “Inspecting Constructed
Stormwater BMPs” will be revised and
incorporated into the City’s existing Stormwater
Management Ordinance
Site Plan Review Written procedures for site plan review,
inspection, and enforcement will be incorporated
into the City’s existing Stormwater Management
Ordinance
Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Program for The requirement for construction operators to
Construction Operators implement an ESC program will be included in
the revisions to the City’s existing Stormwater
Waste Control Requirements to control wastes (including but not
limited to, discarded building materials, concrete
truck wash out, chemicals, litter, and sanitary
wastes) will be incorporated into the City’s
existing Stormwater Management Ordinance
6.3.6.5 2016 MS4 Permit MCM 5: Post-Construction Stormwater Management
Additional requirements and written procedures will be incorporated into the City’s existing
Stormwater Management Ordinance. The City of Easthampton Conservation Commission, City
Council, DPW, Planning Board, and ZBA will be responsible for modifications to and enactment
of the ordinance.

As-Built Plans for On-Site Stormwater Control Written procedures to require submission of as-
built drawings and ensure long term O&M will be
incorporated into the City’s existing Stormwater
Inventory and Priority Ranking of MS4-Owned A detailed inventory of MS4-owned properties
Properties for BMP Retrofits has been developed as part of the development
of the O&M procedures. A running list of at least
5 sites that have potential for retrofits will be
developed

Assess Allowing Green Infrastructure A report assessing existing local regulations to
determine the feasibility of making green
infrastructure practices allowable where
appropriate site conditions exist will be developed
Assess Street Design and Parking Lot Guidelines A report assessing requirements that affect the
creation of impervious cover will be developed
Ordinance/Regulations The City’s existing Stormwater Management
Ordinance will be modified to contain new
provisions related to low impact development,
new development, and redevelopment
6.3.6.6 Current City Ordinances
The City, in compliance with the 2003 permit requirements, established the following stormwater-
related ordinances:
• Chapter 12, Article VII, Stormwater Management Ordinance
• Chapter 12, Article VIII, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Ordinance
6.3.6.7 Recommended Changes to City Ordinances
Tighe & Bond reviewed the current City Ordinances related to stormwater management with
consideration of the additional regulatory requirements identified in the 2016 permit. A red-line
version of the ordinances with the proposed changes is included in Appendix U.
6.3.6.8 2016 MS4 Permit MCM 6: Pollution Prevention & Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping and pollution prevention procedures, infrastructure inventories, and related
programs have been developed, and are available in the City Engineer’s office. The City of
Easthampton DPW is the department responsible for implementing and updating Good
Housekeeping BMPs as needed.

Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Procedures Written O&M procedures have been developed for
parks and open spaces, buildings and facilities, and
vehicles and equipment (See subsection Appendix G
within Appendix S) of this IWRMP Report)
Inventory of Permittee-Owned Parks and Open An inventory of municipal facilities has been
Spaces, Buildings and Facilities, and Vehicles completed
and Equipment
MS4 Infrastructure O&M Program A program for repair and rehabilitation of MS4
infrastructure has been developed
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) SWPPPs for municipal waste-handling facilities
(Highway Garage, Transfer Station, and Brush Dump)
will be developed
Catch Basin Cleaning Procedures and a schedule for catch basin cleaning
have been developed
Street Sweeping Program A street sweeping program has been developed
Road Salt Use Optimization Program A road salt use optimization program will be
established and implemented during de-icing season
Inspection and Maintenance of Stormwater Stormwater treatment structures inspection and

Treatment Structures maintenance procedures and frequencies have been
established
6.3.6.9 2016 MS4 Permit BMPs for Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads
Long Island Sound Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen

As described in Section 3.2.3 of the SWMP, the City of Easthampton is located within the
Connecticut River watershed, which in turn is located within the Long Island Sound watershed.
The Long Island Sound has an EPA-approved total maximum daily load (TMDL) for Nitrogen.
Discharges from MS4s in Massachusetts to waters that are tributaries to the Long Island Sound
are subject to the requirements of the 2016 MA Small MS4 General Permit Appendix F, part B.1.
2016 MA Small MS4 Enhanced MCM 1 BMPs/Progress to Date

Objectives – Long Island Sound Nitrogen
TMDL
Education and outreach to required stakeholders Anticipate that PVPC CRSWC will develop the
will be supplemented with annual timed required educational materials for distribution to
messages on specific topics (grass clippings, required stakeholders
fertilizers, pet waste, leaf litter)

TMDL
Nitrogen Removal BMPs in Stormwater The City’s existing Stormwater Management
Ordinance Ordinance will be modified to contain new
provisions related to optimization of stormwater
management BMPs for nitrogen removal. Draft
language is provided in a red-line version of the
ordinance in Appendix U.
Nitrogen Reduction BMPs in Inventory and The report containing a detailed inventory of
Priority Ranking of MS4-Owned Properties for MS4-owned properties and a running list of at
BMP Retrofits least 5 sites that have potential for retrofits that
will be developed will include options for nitrogen-
reduction BMPs

TMDL
Slow Release Fertilizer and Grass Cuttings Written O&M procedures have been developed,
Management Requirements in O&M Procedures and include procedures for proper management
of grass cuttings and leaf litter on permittee-
owned property. Currently, pesticides, herbicides
and fertilizers are not used on any city land that
the Parks & Recreation Department maintains.
Increased Street Sweeping Frequency The street sweeping program that has been
developed includes a schedule that provides for
the required twice a year street sweeping
Appendix F, part B.1 of the 2016 MA Small MS4 General Permit requires the development and
submission of a Nitrogen Source Identification Report as part of the year 4 annual report, and the
evaluation of all properties identified as presenting retrofit opportunities or areas for structural
BMP installation as part of MCM 5 or identified in the Nitrogen Source Identification Report in the
year 5 annual report.
Water Quality Impaired Waterbodies

As described in Section 3.2 of the SWMP, several surface waterbodies within the City of
Easthampton were identified in the 2014 Integrated List of Waters as Category 5 waters needing
a TMDL. Appendix H of the 2016 MA Small MS4 General Permit identifies additional requirements
related to discharges to certain water quality limited waterbodies, which are applicable as follows:

Applicable Section of 2016
2014 Integrated List
Waterbody Segment MA Small MS4 General
Impairment
Permit
Total Phosphorus Appendix H, Part II
Non-native Aquatic Plants
Nashawannuck Pond MA34067 [Nutrient/Eutrophication Not Applicable
Biological Indicators in 2016 [Not Applicable]
Draft Integrated List]
E. coli Appendix H, Part III
Connecticut River MA34-04
PCBs in Fish Tissue Not Applicable
E. coli Appendix H, Part III
Nutrient/Eutrophication
Manhan River MA34-11 Biological Indicators [not Not Applicable
included in 2016 Draft
Integrated List]
Turbidity Appendix H, Part V
Oxbow MA34066
Non-native Aquatic Plants Not Applicable
Aquatic Plants (Macrophytes) Not Applicable
Wilton Brook MA34-15
Non-native Aquatic Plants Not Applicable
Nashawannuck Pond (MA34057), Impaired by Total Phosphorus

Appendix H part II of the 2016 MA Small MS4 General Permit identifies additional requirements
for stormwater discharges to waterbodies that are water quality limited due to phosphorus, or their
tributaries, without an EPA approved TMDL.

Objectives – Nashawannuck Pond Total
Phosphorus Impairment
Education and outreach to Residential and Will be combined with the requirements of
Business/Commercial/Institution stakeholders will Appendix F part B.I described in Section 5.1.1.1.
be supplemented with annual timed messages on
specific topics (grass clippings, fertilizers, pet
waste, and leaf litter)

Objectives – Nashawannuck Pond Total
Phosphorus Impairment
Phosphorus Removal BMPs in Stormwater The City’s existing Stormwater Management
Ordinance Ordinance will be modified to contain new
provisions related to optimization of stormwater
management BMPs for phosphorus removal.
Draft language is provided in a red-line version of
the Ordinance in Appendix U.
Infiltration BMPs in Inventory and Priority Ranking The report containing a detailed inventory of
of MS4-Owned Properties for BMP Retrofits MS4-owned properties and a running list of at
least 5 sites that have potential for retrofits will be
developed and will include options for infiltration
BMPs
MCM 6: Good Housekeeping and Pollution Prevention enhancements required by Appendix H,

part II are the same as those required under Appendix F, part B.1. for the Long Island Sound
TMDL (refer to Section 5.1.1.3). Appendix H, part II of the 2016 MA Small MS4 General Permit
requires the development and submission of a Phosphorus Source Identification Report as part
of the year 4 annual report, and the evaluation of all properties identified as presenting retrofit
opportunities or areas for structural BMP installation as part of MCM 5 or identified in the
Phosphorus Source Identification Report that are within the drainage area of the water quality
limited water or its tributaries in the year 5 annual report.
Connecticut River (MA34-04) and Manhan River (MA34-11), Impaired by E. coli

Appendix H part III of the 2016 MA Small MS4 General Permit identifies additional requirements
for stormwater discharges to waterbodies that are water quality limited due to bacteria or
pathogens, without an EPA approved TMDL.
2016 MA Small MS4 Enhanced MCM 1 Objectives BMPs/Progress to Date

– Connecticut River & Manhan River E. coli
Impairment
Education and outreach to Residential stakeholders Will be combined with the requirements of
will be supplemented with annual timed messages on Appendix F part B.I described in Section
specific topics (pet waste and maintenance of septic 5.1.1.1.
systems)

2016 MA Small MS4 Enhanced MCM 3 Objectives BMPs/Progress to Date
– Connecticut River & Manhan River E. coli
Impairment
Enhanced Catchment Investigations As described in IDDE Plan Sections 7 and 8.2,
catchments draining to the waterbodies
impaired for E. coli in the City will be
designated either Problem Catchments or
HIGH priority
Oxbow (MA34066), Impaired by Turbidity

Appendix H part V of the 2016 MA Small MS4 General Permit identifies additional requirements
for stormwater discharges to waterbodies that are water quality limited due to solids (TSS or
turbidity), oil and grease (hydrocarbons) or metals (Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Lead or Zinc), without
an EPA approved TMDL.

Objectives – Oxbow Turbidity Impairment
Stormwater Management System Design The City’s existing Stormwater Management
Requirements Ordinance will be modified to address this
requirement. A red-line version of the permit is
included in Appendix U.

Objectives – Oxbow Turbidity Impairment
Increased Street Sweeping Frequency The street sweeping program that has been
developed provides for increased street
sweeping frequency in areas with potential for
high pollutant loads
Enhanced Catch Basin Cleaning The developed procedures and schedule have
been designed to ensure that no sump shall be
more than 50% full
6.4 ESTIMATED STORMWATER COSTS
Stormwater-related costs were assessed as part of the IWRMP. There are three main categories
of stormwater related costs in Easthampton:

1) Current operational and maintenance costs, mainly street sweeping and stormwater
collection system repair (pipes, culverts, catch basins, etc.).
2) MS4 General Permit compliance costs.
3) Infrastructure improvement costs – more expensive capital projects and purchase of O&M
machinery.
Stormwater needs are currently funded through the Sewer Enterprise Fund, and are not tracked
separately. Budget estimates for stormwater management needs were developed by reviewing
previous budgets and holding discussions with municipal staff. In addition, costs were developed
for future stormwater needs related to MS4 permit compliance and infrastructure improvement
projects such as replacement of failing headwalls, culvert repairs, and slope stabilization. Details
on these costs are provided in the subsections below.
6.4.1 Existing Stormwater Expenditures
Easthampton has stormwater catchbasins, stormdrains, pipes, culverts, and detention basins, all
of which need maintenance, as well as periodic repair and replacement. The City’s current
practice is to improve stormwater infrastructure concurrently with roadway improvements as part
of state funded roadway projects (through Chapter 90 project funding where appropriate), or on
an as-needed basis by the collection system and highway repair crews. City funded projects
include staff time, overhead, and construction costs, which are paid by the Sewer Enterprise
Fund. Expenses related to construction, maintenance and repair of stormwater infrastructure are
not currently identified and tracked by the City as stormwater costs, nor does the City levy any
fees or taxes to specifically cover the costs of maintaining stormwater infrastructure.
A list of some of the typical expenditures associated with stormwater management related to
operations and capital improvements is provided in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4
Typical Stormwater Management Expenditures
Category Operations Capital Improvements

Personnel Engineer Consultant Fees
Laborers • Planning/Studies
Administrative • Design, Permitting &
Construction
Environmental Pollution Prevention River Restoration
Protection Water Quality Sampling • Sediment Removal
Corrective Actions Pump Station Rehab
• IDDE Pipe Repair and Replacement
• Flood Control Drainage Improvements
General Maintenance GIS Mapping
• Street Sweeping Drainage Improvements
• Catch Basin Cleaning Culvert Replacement
• Materials and Supplies
Other Public Education and Outreach
Personnel Training
Easthampton currently funds stormwater infrastructure maintenance and repair through the
Sewer Enterprise Fund, the costs of which are not tracked separately. Work is completed by the
Collection System Maintenance Crew. The current stormwater expenditures for Easthampton
were estimated using data from the FY 2013 through FY 2017 annual budgets. DPW staff
estimate that up to 50% of the staff time and certain materials and other expenses paid for through
the Sewer Enterprise Fund budget are spent on stormwater infrastructure operations,
maintenance and repair. The main categories and estimated expenditures based on FY2013-
2017 data are listed in Table 6-5. The estimated annual expenditures on stormwater related
projects over this five-year period was approximately $700,000.

Table 6-5
Estimated Average Annual Sewer Enterprise Fund Stormwater Expenditures 2013-2017
Estimated
Categories Expenditures Notes
Salaries & Overtime $430,000 DPW staff, portion of Mayor, assessor, etc.
Stones, gravel, loam, precast concrete,
Materials $52,000
bituminous concrete, etc.
Small tools, office supplies, protective clothing,
Supplies $8,000
uniforms, etc.
Vehicle repair & Maintenance $20,000 Gas, oil, repairs, etc.
Education & training, computers, building
Miscellaneous $8,000
services, telephone, etc.
Assistance from consultants and technical
Technical & Professional Services $12,500
service providers.
50% of costs for flushing machine, equipment
Capital Expenses $24,000
trailer, vehicle
SubTotal $554,500
Chapter 90 Projects $138,000 Stormwater portion of roadway projects.
Total $692,500
The stormwater costs in Table 6-5 are what Easthampton is currently paying for stormwater and
does not include delayed maintenance or repair costs. Recommended projects identified through
the IWRMP evaluation are included in Section 6.4.3.
The salaries and overtime costs include salaries and overhead expenses for DPW staff prorated
from the Sewer Enterprise Fund based on the estimated amount of time spent on stormwater
related tasks. A percentage of the salary of other City staff including the Mayor, the Assessor,
and the Treasurer is also included.
6.4.2 2016 MS4 General Permit Compliance Costs
Provisions of the 2016 MS4 General permit include items that will require Easthampton to invest
more in maintenance, record keeping, public education and outreach, evaluating the stormwater
system for illegal connections and discharges, and investigating and installing upgrades to
stormwater infrastructure. To estimate the cost of compliance with the permit, a model was
created that listed each of the requirements, the level of effort (labor hours) estimated to meet
them, and associated non-labor costs. For the purposes of estimating labor costs, a blended rate
was developed, assuming all labor would be from City employees in the first year of the permit

and an 80% / 20% split between City employees and consultants in the following four years of the
permit.
Estimated costs for compliance with the 2016 MS4 General Permit were reduced in the model to
account for tasks that were completed as part of the IWRMP project, such as GIS mapping and
prioritizing outfalls for illicit connection investigations. Total five-year costs for compliance with
major provisions of the permit are presented in Table 6-6. The estimated five-year cost of MS4
permit compliance is over $750,000. The IWRMP included over $200,000 of work towards MS4
permit compliance, leaving an estimated $550,000 in remaining costs that will be incurred by
Easthampton.
Table 6-6
2016 MS4 Permit Compliance Costs
Permit Category Total IWRMP Remaining
MS4 Permit Administration1 $ 106,000 $ 60,000 $ 46,000

TMDL Compliance $ 81,000 $ - $ 81,000
Public Education / Outreach (MCM 1)2 $ 37,000 $ 7,000 $ 30,000
Public Participation / Involvement (MCM 2)2 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ -
Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination (MCM
3)2 $ 208,000 $ 93,000 $ 115,000
Construction Site Run-off Control (MCM 4)2 $ 7,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000
Post-Construction Management in New
Development (MCM 5)2 $ 28,000 $ 8,000 $ 20,000
Pollution Prevention & Good Housekeeping
(MCM 6)2 $ 282,000 $ 28,000 $ 254,000
Total $ 760,000 $ 211,000 $ 550,000

1File Notice of Intent (NOI), reporting, record keeping, etc.
2MCM = Minimum Control Measure
All costs provided in 2017 dollars
Easthampton is not alone in planning for new costs associated with stormwater permits, and is
partnering with other communities through the PVPC Connecticut River Stormwater Committee
to meet some of the educational requirements of the new permit. The cost of that membership is
$2,500 per year and is included in the cost estimates.

Construction costs are anticipated in Year 6 of the MS4 General Permit in the form of stormwater
pollution control infrastructure. The planning, design, and yearly progress reports on installing
pollution control infrastructure (also called best management practices (BMPs)) for stormwater
systems as required by the permit are included in the model, but the cost of constructing them is
not.
6.4.3 Five-Year Capital Costs
Other stormwater infrastructure needs and projects in Easthampton include capital projects that
have been deferred due to lack of funds, the purchase of a street sweeper, and a stormwater
utility feasibility study to evaluate the costs and benefits of raising funds to cover stormwater costs
through a fee-based Enterprise Fund. These projects, listed in Table 6-7, total $2.3 M. As these
are based on recommendations from a five-year plan, the estimated annual cost is $460,000,
assuming an equal distribution of expenditures over the five years and not accounting for
expected price escalations.
Table 6-7
Stormwater Infrastructure Capital Needs
Hendricks Street culvert improvements $200,000

Ferry Street culvert improvements $150,000
Emerald Place outlet structure replacement and slope stabilization $250,000
Industrial Drive headwall replacement $250,000
Cherry Street headwall replacement $50,000
Union Street - TIP /SW system improvements $250,000
CCTV Inspections $100,000
Repair/replace aging pipes and structures $750,000
Inspect and maintain structural BMPs $50,000
Street Sweeper $250,000
Total Costs $2,300,000
Estimated Annual Costs $460,000

6.4.4 Total Estimated Stormwater Costs
A summary of the estimated stormwater projects and costs are listed in Table 6-8 and total over
$1.3 M per year. New expenditures are estimated at $620,000, which is approximately equal to
Easthampton’s current annual expenditure for stormwater operations, maintenance, and repair.
Table 6-8
Estimated Annual Stormwater Infrastructure Costs
Infrastructure Capital Needs $460,000

MS4 Compliance $160,000
Subtotal $620,000
Existing Expenditures (from Sewer Enterprise Fund) $692,500
Total Estimated Annual Stormwater Costs $1,312,500
6.5 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER FUNDING EVALUATION
There are several types of funding mechanisms that Easthampton could use to fund increases in
expenses to maintain and repair stormwater infrastructure, and to achieve compliance with the
2016 MS4 General Permit. Easthampton currently funds stormwater maintenance through the
Sewer Enterprise Fund and also pays for stormwater capital costs through Chapter 90 funds that
are available for transportation projects. When roads are repaved or upgraded stormwater
infrastructure is improved where necessary. Stormwater culverts, catchbasins and pipes in the
greatest need of replacement are not always aligned with Chapter 90 projects. The following
methods for funding stormwater operations, maintenance, permit compliance and capital projects
were assessed as part of this evaluation:
• Existing Fee Structure

• Create a new Stormwater Utility
• Property taxes and budgeting through the General Fund
• Special Assessment Districts
• System Development Charges

• Grants and Low Interest Loans
• Capital Bonds
A description of each funding option, including a list of advantages and disadvantages to each
method, is provided in Appendix W, Preliminary Stormwater Funding Evaluation Report. Based
on this evaluation. it is recommended that Easthampton consider the following funding methods
for addressing future stormwater expenditures:
• Existing Sewer Enterprise Fund

• Create a new Stormwater Utility and Enterprise Fund
The following funding methods are not suitable for a sustained source of funding to operate and
maintain the City’s stormwater system; however, these methods may be appropriate to help fund
specific projects:
• Special Assessment Districts

• System Development Charges
• Grants and Low Interest Loans
• Capital Bonds
We recommend that the City consider development of a stormwater utility/enterprise fund to

establish a reliable funding source to address stormwater infrastructure and permit requirements.
The Preliminary Stormwater Funding Evaluation Report provides a starting point for the costs to
be addressed by such a fund and options for establishing the basis of the fee. The City will need
to consider if a stormwater utility should pay for all of the City’s stormwater costs, or just a portion,
and how the costs should be assessed. Many communities use some form of Equivalent
Residential Unit (ERU), which uses impervious surfaces as a basis for equitably assessing
stormwater fees. The Preliminary Stormwater Funding Evaluation Report provides an
assessment of various options for the City’s consideration.
6.6 STORMWATER RECOMMENDATIONS
The most pressing driver for stormwater improvements is the need to comply with the 2016 MS4
permit, which is slated to go into effect on July 1, 2018. The list of BMPs required for compliance

are provided in this section, and have been further identified in the draft NOI and SWMP, as well
as in determining the anticipated compliance costs.
In addition, there are key stormwater infrastructure components that require assessment or
improvement. Several of these components are listed in Table 5-7. One storm drain of concern
extends approximately 3,000 linear feet cross country from Cherry Street to an outlet at Everett
Street. This line ranges in size from 18 inches to 36 inches, constructed circa 1918/1928 and is
made of vitrified clay pipe, except for a 36-inch section of ADS installed in 1997. This line crosses
private yards and under private structures. Due to the length of the line and the location off City
rights of way, it is recommended that this line is prioritized for CCTV-inspection to confirm its
condition.
While the City has a good base GIS mapping of its stormwater system, there is still much data to
be collected as summarized in Table 6-9, GIS Data Gap Analysis. As the City performs field work
and investigations on the stormwater system, this additional data can be collected and added to
the City’s GIS system.
Table 6-9
GIS Data Gap Assessment
Structures Total Quantity Attribute % Complete

Drain Pipes 3944
Pipe Diameter 41
Pipe Material 39
Year Installed 26
Date Created 29
Source 50
Manhole 1168
Type 88
Rim Elevation 2
Rim to Sump 0
Date Created 44
Catch Basin 2874
Type 93
Rim Elevation 1
Rim to Sump 0
Date Created 35

Structures Total Quantity Attribute % Complete
Outfalls 191
Outfall ID 38
Type 12
Diameter 15
Material 10
Date Created 27
Source 28
Connectivity
Outfalls with pipe attached 164 86
Outfalls attached to culverts 20 10
Outfalls near a pipe (20 feet) but not snapped 27 14
Outfalls near a culvert but not snapped 7 4
Catch Basins snapped to pipes 2798 97
Catch Basin near a pipe (20 feet) but not snapped 45 2
Manholes Snapped to pipes 1143 98
Manholes near a pipe (20 feet) but not snapped 19 2
Finally, as previously noted, there is currently no dedicated funding source for Easthampton’s
stormwater infrastructure. It is recommended that Easthampton consider further the option of
instituting a stormwater utility/enterprise fund to develop a reliable and equitable funding source
for stormwater.

7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The DPW in Easthampton is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the wastewater
collection and treatment, water distribution and treatment, and stormwater management systems
and infrastructure described in this report. These vital water resource infrastructure provide clean
drinking water and clean surface waters for the community and reduce street flooding occurances.
Currently, Easthampton is meeting all of its regulatory requirements and is providing high quality
drinking water and discharging treated wastewater. However, much of the existing infrastructure
is greater than 20 years old and is either at or nearing the end of its expected service life.
Currently, repairs to the drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems to address
deficiencies such as pipe breaks or equipment failures are performed as they become apparent.
A comprehensive capital plan will allow the City to more proactively plan and budget for
improvements before failures occur. The analyses completed as part of the IWRMP process and
described in this report resulted in numerous improvement recommendations for the drinking
water, wastewater and stormwater systems that were reviewed and compared in order to develop
an integrated, prioritized, 5-year capital plan.
The analyses of Easthampton’s water systems resulted in a list of identified needs over the next
20 years. In the condition assessments for the wastewater and water infrastructure, most of the
equipment will need to be replaced within the 20-year time frame. Through the process, system,
and regulatory evaluations, areas of need and improvement beyond the life expectancy of the
equipment have also been identified. For each system - wastewater, water, and stormwater, a
list of prioritized needs was compiled that contains projects, and equipment replacements or
upgrades, that are recommended to be completed within the next 5 years. These 5-year CIPs
were developed separately by identifying and prioritizing recommended projects within each of
the three resource areas. The lists were then compiled to create a 5-year integrated water
resources management CIP.
7.2 PROJECT SCORING METHODOLOGY
The goal of the 5-year CIP is to provide Easthampton with an actionable list of prioritized projects
across water sectors. To place them in an even platform for prioritization between infrastructure
systems, and to distinguish higher priority projects from lower priority projects, a scoring

methodology was developed to sort and rank projects across asset categories. Recommended
projects were first prioritized within each water resource area (wastewater, water, stormwater)
then combined into one comprehensive list.
Identified needs generated from the wastewater and drinking water facilities condition
assessments were sorted over a 20-year timeframe into four general categories of urgency.
These were 1) immediate, 2) within 5 years, 3) from 5-10 years, and 4) between 10 and 20 years.
Many additional system needs were identified through the other evaluations described in this
document, and specific improvement projects were recommended. Those projects that were
deemed necessary to be implemented in the short term (items with a need for improvements over
the next 5 years) were prioritized for each water resource area. Stormwater projects that were
identified by City staff as high priority were combined with the stormwater tasks expected to be
needed over the next 5 years based on the MS4 regulatory requirements.
7.2.1 Likelihood of Failure
All projects that were identified as being required or recommended within the first five years were
included in the 5-year CIP. Equipment and structures evaluated in the condition assessments as
Immediate or Category A were included in the 5-year CIP, with Immediate items assigned a score
of 5 and Category A items scored as 4. As a reminder, the rating definitions for these items in
the condition assessment is:
condition or importance. Items that are safety or code concerns were included in this
category.
All projects identified in the IWRMP process evaluations that were identified as being
recommended within the next five years were assigned scores of 4 or 5. Projects that are on the
list to address an existing permit violation or to increase the safety of employees or the general
public were scored as 5. Items that are important and recommended within the next 5 years, but
that do not pose a health and safety risk or permit violation were scored as a 4.

7.2.2 Consequence Factors
The consequences of failure for each major asset listed in the 5-year project list were evaluated
and prioritized by developing a consequence factor for use in a risk scoring methodology. These
factors were developed for assets and projects that would result in a loss of function resulting in
a failure, and for projects that provide opportunity. Each failure or opportunity could result in a
consequence to public health, the environment, or effect a permit, code, or other regulatory
requirement. Thus, individual scores were developed for public (and employee) health and safety,
environmental impacts, relative costs, and whether the improvements were needed to meet
permit/regulatory requirements. Each failure or opportunity was also assigned a value based on
its benefit in relation to its cost (i.e., those projects that had a greater benefit for a given cost were
ranked higher). All projects in the 5-year plan were assigned a score from 1 to 5 in each of these
categories, then the scores were multiplied together to create a consequence factor score. The
definition of each score for each of the consequence categories is provided in Table 7-1.
Overall project priority scores were developed by multiplying the consequence factors by the
likelihood that an asset will fail. Projects that present an opportunity, such as selling water to
neighboring communities were also included on the list using the same scoring methodology.
Table 7-1
Consequence Scores for each Category
Permits,
Regulatory &
Score Public Health Benefit/Costs Environmental
Code
Requirements
>500 customers,
Impact to Barnes
5-Very High or Very High Violation
Aquifer
Critical facilities1
100-500
Major Impact to
4-High customers High --
Impaired Waters
No critical facilities
26-100 customers Minor Impact to
3-Moderate Moderate Possible Violation
No critical facilities Impaired Waters
Major Impact to
10-25 customers
2-Low Low Non-Impaired --
No critical facilities
Waters
Minor or No
<10 customers Impact to
1-Minimal Minimal No Violation
No critical facilities Non-impaired
Waters

The combined Consequence Factor was calculated as follows:
• If the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score=1, the Consequence Factor is the weighted
average of the other factors.
• If the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score=3, the Consequence Factor is the weighted
average of all of the factors, including the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score.
• If the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score=5, the Consequence Factor is 5.
7.2.3 Risk/ Opportunity Score
Projects that present a risk result in a negative impact if the project is not conducted and an asset
fails. Opportunity projects result in positive impacts from their implementation. Projects were
prioritized in groups by the Risk/ Opportunity score. The Risk/ Opportunity score was generated
by multiplying the Likelihood of Failure (or Success) score multiplied by the Consequence Factor.
The Risk/ Opportunity score ranks both types of projects on the same scale, from 1-25. The
higher the number, the greater the likelihood and/ or negative impact if the asset fails, or the
greater the opportunity. This scoring methodology results in many projects with the same score;
these projects have a similar need priority and are generally not further sorted within each Risk/
Opportunity category, other than being listed from least expensive to most expensive.
This scoring method is a tool used to prioritize projects and is subject to modification as priorities
and conditions change. The plan should be revisited at least on a yearly basis, and project
priorities shifted as necessary. It is expected that the projects will shift from year to year as other
projects are completed or decisions made that change the priority of other related needs.
Projects that are health and safety related or could result in a permit, code or regulatory violation
are scored highest in the 5-year CIP (see Table ES-1).
7.3 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Preliminary opinions of probable cost are included for each of the recommended projects
identified in this evaluation. The costs are budgetary in nature and provided for planning
purposes. The estimated accuracy is planning level, and the costs are not intended as the basis
for appropriation of funds. Should the City proceed with specific construction projects or studies
listed in the recommendations, a more detailed cost estimate based on the specific parameters
of the project should be completed.

Construction costs include materials, installation, and demolition costs (where applicable),
contractor overhead and profit, a 20% allowance for engineering, and a 30% allowance for project
contingencies.
Project costs are provided in the Total Estimated Project Cost (Year 0) column in the ranked
project lists provided below.
7.4 CIP TABLES
A combined CIP table for the drinking water, wastewater and stormwater project
recommendations is included as Table ES-1 in the Executive Summary. The combined total
project costs for the first 5-Year CIP are $21,820,275. The following pages contain project tables
prioritized within each water infrastructure area. The projects in all of the lists are sorted by the
Risk/ Opportunity scores. The importance of the scores is in the relative position, not the actual
numbers. The scores can be adjusted as needed to reflect changes in conditions that would
warrant adjustments. These are dynamic tables to reflect a dynamic plan that should be updated
on a regular basis. Note that health and safety items and permit/regulartory violations are all
rated as highest need.
All projects are stand-alone projects. However, the recommendation to change the waer
distribution pumping and storage system operations (W-O&M-OP-1) should be followed by
cleaning of the Drury Lane storage tank (W-ST-DL-1).

Project Ranking Summary - Wastewater Projects
City of Easthampton IWRMP 2018 - 2022 Total Weight 7.0
Consequence Factors
POF Threshold COF Threshold
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Public Likelihood of
Risk/ Environ. Permit/Regulatory/ Risk/ Opportunity Estimated
Project ID#1 Project Title Project Description / Justification Project Type Immediacy Health Cost/Benefit Failure (or of Conseq. Factor3
Opportunity2 Impact Code Violation Score (1-25)4 project Cost
Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Replace corroded guardrail in wetwell and
Lovefield St. Pump Station- 5 - Immediate
WW PS LF-4 install new Intermediate Floor level guardrail- CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 15,400
Replace Guardrail Violation
safety concern
Replace corroded guardrail and grating in
Daley Field Pump Station-Safety 5 - Immediate
WW PS DF-4 wetwell area, install new guardrail at CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 24,200
Intermediate Floor level
Ballard St. Pump Station 5 - Immediate
WW PS BA-1 Replace pump station with gravity sewers CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 570,000
Propane tank and confined space signage, 5 - Immediate
WW TF S-1 Site Safety Improvements CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 3,700
anchor propane tank Violation
Install new handrail and grating and replace 5 - Immediate
WW TF S-4 Influent Channel Improvements CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 29,600
damaged grating for worker safety Violation
Emergency Lights/Exit Signs- Emergency Lights/Exit Signs-to improve 5 - Immediate

WW TF HW-1 CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 4,000
Headworks Bldg safety Violation
Fire Protection Improvements- New fire protection system to improve safety- 5 - Immediate
WW TF HW-2 CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 6,500
Headworks Bldg Headworks Bldg Violation
Aeration Tanks-Safety Install new guardrail and replace damaged 5 - Immediate
WW TF AT-2 CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 24,900
Improvements grating Violation
Secondary Clarifiers-Safety Install new guardrail where wall is less than 5 - Immediate
WW TF SC-1 CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 25,100
Improvements 42" above grade Violation
RAS/WAS Bldg-Stair Guardrail Add intermediate guardrail at opening that is 5 - Immediate
WW TF RW-7 CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 1,700
Addition too large to meet OSHA requirements Violation
5 - Immediate
WW TF RW-11 RAS/WAS Bldg-Hatch Signage Provide signage at Dewatering Pump Pit CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 500
Violation
Chlorine Contact Chamber- 5 - Immediate
WW TF CC-4 Modify to meet MA bldg code CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 23,800
Guardrail Modifications Violation
Plant Water Bldg-Safety Repair exposed ventilation fan wiring, place 5 - Immediate
WW TF PW-4 CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 4,300
Improvements confine space signage Violation
WW TF PW-5 New fire protection system to improve safety CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 6,000
Plant Water Bldg Violation
Provide guardrail along cross-over platform

Control Bldg-Pump Room Safety 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-5 (no guardrail) and on the stairs from the 1st CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 6,400
floor (guardrail on 1 side only)

Add toe plates to provide protection for 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-9 Storage Rooms Exterior Walkway CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 2,100
workers below Violation
Improvements
Page 1 of 9 12/12/2018
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Relocate scum pump disconnect switches so
that they are accessible, provide labels for
sodium hypochlorite tanks, provide ramp
over low sodium hypochlorite piping 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-15 Control Bldg-Safety Improvements CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 12,600
(tripping hazard), remove obstructions near Violation
MCC in Shop and Storage Room, install
caution signs on low hanging pipes in Pump
Room
Office air conditioner does not meet MA Bldg
Control Bldg Lab and Office-HVAC 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-18 Code; lab HVAC is old, functions poorly, and CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 93,500
is inadequate for the space
Control Bldg Emergency Emergency Lights/Exit Signs-to improve 5 - Immediate
WW TF CB-19 CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 8,000
Lights/Exit Signs safety Violation
Seal room penetrations to improve safety-
WW TF CB-20 Shop & Storage Room, Boiler Room and CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5.00 5.00 25.0 $ 3,300
Control Bldg Violation
Generator Room
Replace pump station with smaller

Liberty St. Pump Station 3- Potential
WW PS LI-1 submersible station; existing pump station is CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 2-Low 4-High 4-High 5.00 3.14 15.7 $ 549,000
Replacement Violation
oversized for current flows
Hendrick St. Pump Station- Replace corroded door, and roof and ceiling 3- Potential
WW PS HE-2 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 5-Very High 4.00 3.29 13.1 $ 47,000
Structural Improvements (roof is in poor condition and leaking) Violation
3- Potential
WW CS 6 Union St. sewer lining Line sewers with structural defects CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 5-Very High 4.00 3.29 13.1 $ 164,700
Violation
3- Potential
WW TF OF-1 Short-Term Outfall Improvements Clean siphon section CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 5-Very High 4.00 3.29 13.1 $ 50,000
Violation

Equipment is old and generator cannot run 2 3- Potential
WW PS LF-6 Replacement of Generator and CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 4-High 4.00 3.14 12.6 $ 213,000
pumps simulataneously Violation
Transfer Switch
Replace roof (in poor condition), seal

Daley Field Pump Station- northern wall (groundwater infiltration),
3- Potential
WW PS DF-3 Structural/Architectural replace corroded doors, replace deteriorated CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 5-Very High 4.00 3.14 12.6 $ 113,400
Violation
Improvements concrete landing at ext. door, replace failed
coatings
Lownds Ave. Pump Station 3- Potential

WW PS LO-1 Replace pump station with gravity sewers CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 3-Moderate 5-Very High 4.00 3.14 12.6 $ 608,000
Control Bldg-Generator Replace generator and transfer switch due to

WW TF CB-14 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 315,800
Improvements age and code violation
Page 2 of 9 12/12/2018
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Replace old panelboards, transformers, 3- Potential
WW PS LF-5 Electrical Distribution, lighting and CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 3-Moderate 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 51,100
service entrance, lights and receptacles Violation
Replacement of Generator, 3- Potential
WW PS DF-7 Equipment is old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 3-Moderate 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 111,700
Transfer Switch, Fuel Tank and Violation
Fuel Lines
Daley Field Pump Station- 3- Potential

WW PS DF-10 Old, unreliable, and has high annual cost CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 4,400

3- Potential
WW PS HE-3 Electrical Distribution, lighting and Equipment is old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 3-Moderate 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 54,400
Violation

3- Potential
WW PS HE-5 Replacement of Generator and Equipment is old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 4-High 3-Moderate 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 65,300
Violation
Transfer Switch
Mt. Tom Pump Station-Generator

3- Potential
WW PS MT-4 and Transfer Switch Replace old generator and transfer switch CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 59,600
Violation
Improvements
3- Potential
WW CS 2 Cherry St. Sewer Replacement Replace collapsed pipe CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 2-Low 5-Very High 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 323,400
Violation
Line sewers with structural defects; 3- Potential
WW CS 4 Underwood Ave. sewer lining CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 3-Moderate 4-High 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 93,000
significant infiltration source Violation
3- Potential
WW TF S-3 Chain-Link Fence Improvements Replace 400 ft. of damaged/missing fence CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 34,100
Violation
Aeration Tanks-Aerator 3- Potential

WW TF AT-1 New mechnical aerators-Tanks 1, 3 and 4 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 1,064,100
Aeration Tanks-Replace Effluent 3- Potential

WW TF AT-5 Replace corroded weir CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 4.00 3.00 12.0 $ 18,000
Weirs Violation
Headworks Bldg-Safety Properly store gas cylinders and replace old
WW TF HW-4 CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 5.00 2.33 11.7 $ 26,300
Improvements gas meter
Replace steep stairs to lower level, wooden
Solids Handling Bldg-Safety
WW TF SH-7 stairs to Polymer tank and eye wash station CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 5.00 2.33 11.7 $ 43,500
Improvements
due to age
Control Bldg-Transformer
WW TF CB-16 Critical item that is overheating CONSTRUCTION Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 5.00 2.33 11.7 $ 15,000
Replacement (Compressor Room)
Page 3 of 9 12/12/2018
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Daley Field Pump Station-Electrical
3- Potential
WW PS DF-5 Distribution, lighting and Equipment is old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 3-Moderate 4.00 2.86 11.4 $ 87,700
Violation
Mt. Tom Pump Station-Electrical Replace old panelboards, transformers,

3- Potential
WW PS MT-3 Distribution, Lights, Receptacles service entrance, lights, receptacles, and CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 3-Moderate 4.00 2.86 11.4 $ 27,800
Violation
and alarm Improvements alarms
Replace plug valves and clarifier drives;

Primary Clarifiers-Mechanical 3- Potential
WW TF PC-1 components are old and replacement parts CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 3-Moderate 4.00 2.86 11.4 $ 295,900
are difficult to obtain
Line sewers with structural defects on East 3- Potential

WW CS 3 Clark St. Area Sewer Lining CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 2-Low 3-Moderate 4.00 2.71 10.9 $ 166,100
Green St., Grove St., Maple St., & Mayher St. Violation
3- Potential
WW CS 5 Oliver St. sewer lining Line sewers with structural defects CONSTRUCTION Risk A 2-Low 1-Minimal 4-High 4.00 2.71 10.9 $ 283,700
Violation
Ashley Circle Pump Station-Piping Piping and valve replacement, construction 3- Potential
WW PS AS-1 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 4.00 2.57 10.3 $ 66,100
and Valve Improvements of valve vault, new hatch safety grate Violation
Ashley Circle Pump Station- 3- Potential

WW PS AS-2 Telemetry improvements CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 4.00 2.57 10.3 $ 4,400
Torrey St. Pump Station-Telemetry 3- Potential

WW PS TO-2 Telemetry improvements CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.00 2.43 9.7 $ 4,400
Torrey St. Pump Station-New 3- Potential

WW PS TO-3 New hatch safety grate to improve safety CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.00 2.43 9.7 $ 5,700
Hatch Safety Grate Violation
Phelps St. Pump Station-Telemetry 3- Potential

WW PS PH-2 Telemetry improvements CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.00 2.43 9.7 $ 4,400
Cook Rd. Pump Station Check valve replacement and telemetry 3- Potential
WW PS CO-1 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4.00 2.43 9.7 $ 5,300
Improvements improvements Violation
East St. North Pump Station

WW PS EN-1 Replace pump station with gravity sewers CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.33 9.3 $ 305,000
elimination
Page 4 of 9 12/12/2018
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Pomeroy Meadow Rd. Pump

WW PS PM-1 Replace pump station with gravity sewers CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.33 9.3 $ 680,000
Station Elimination
Install new plug valves on Return Sludge

RAS/WAS Bldg-Return Sludge Well
WW TF RW-1 piping to allow isolation of secondary CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.33 9.3 $ 41,600
Valving
clarifiers
RAS/WAS Bldg-Misc Structural Repair cracked floor beam and cracked floor
WW TF RW-8 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.33 9.3 $ 6,000
Improvements slab
Lovefield St. Pump Station-New Install new isolation valve at air release valve
WW PS LF-2 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 308,900
Isolation Valve to allow removal of air release valve
Lovefield St. Pump Station-Bypass
WW PS LF-9 Install force main bypass connection CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 255,600
Connection
Daley Field Pump Station-Bypass
WW PS DF-11 Install force main bypass connection CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 255,600
Connection
Hendrick St. Pump Station-Bypass

WW PS HE-8 Install force main bypass connection CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 255,600
Connection
Phelps St. Pump Station-New
New hatch safety grate and wetwell size
WW PS PH-1 Hatch Safety Grate and Wetwell CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 15,700
modifications
Size Modifications
Headworks Bldg-Grit Bucket
WW TF HW-3 Units are old and do not work well CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 610,900
Elevators Replacement
Repair and/or clean & paint corroded/
Headworks Bldg-structural
WW TF HW-5 deteriorated roof components, replace failed CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 140,800
improvements
wall coatings, and replace corroded doors
Repair concrete, replace caulking, and

Primary Clarifiers-Structural
WW TF PC-2 provide floor coating-primary clarifiers and CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 73,400
Improvements
Special MH No. 4
Aeration Tanks-Structural
WW TF AT-3 Replace caulking and failed concrete CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 24,000
Improvements
Replace check and isolation valves, which are
RAS/WAS Bldg-Dewatering Pump in wetwell, install in new valve vault, and
WW TF RW-2 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 64,500
Pit Improvements provide pump lift system to facilitate pump
maintenance
Replace RAS pump, WAS pump and scum
WW TF RW-3 RAS/WAS Bldg-valve Replacement pump plug and check valves, which are old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 133,400
and, in some cases, are difficult to operate
RAS Pumps have exceeded its expected

RAS/WAS Bldg-Replace RAS
WW TF RW-4 service life and need to be larger to meet CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 121,100
Pumps
future permit requirements
Page 5 of 9 12/12/2018
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Chlorine Contact Chamber-Misc Repair deteriorated concrete and replace

WW TF CC-3 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 20,000
Structural Improvements failed caulk
Repair spalled concrete on exterior wall and

Gravity Thickeners-Structural deteriorated concrete on cone, replace
WW TF GT-1 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 90,100
Improvements interior tank wall coating, recoat corroding
stairs
Solids Handling Bldg-Polymer Feed

WW TF SH-1 System is old and in poor condition CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 288,800
System Replacement
Solids Handling Bldg-Misc Replace corroded doors and wall girts, repair
WW TF SH-3 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 73,800
Structural Improvements corroded floor deck
Control Bldg-Garage, Shop &
Storage Room and Generator Clean and paint corroded columns and doors,
WW TF CB-4 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 27,200
Room Architectural/ Structural replace missing door hardware
Improvements
Control Bldg-Storage Room Roof Roof hatches leak-replace with built-up
WW TF CB-7 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 14,900
Hatches Removal roofing
WW TF GE-1 Arc Flash Hazard Analysis To improve safety Study Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 30,000
Replace old collection system cleaning

equipment/vehicles with one new vehicle
WW O&M 2 Pipe/Structure Cleaning Vehicle PURCHASE Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 325,000
(Jet rodder/vacuum unit/CB cleaner
(clamshell))
Obtain new equipment to allow City staff to
WW O&M 3 TV Inspection Equipment/vehicle PURCHASE Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 225,000
inspect sewers
Inspect portions of sewer system annually
WW O&M 4 TV Inspections/MH Inspections Study Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.00 2.00 8.0 $ 190,000
(costy for 5-year period)
Replace old plug valves, gate valve, check
Lovefield St. Pump Station-Valve
WW PS LF-1 valves, and air release valve; replace pipe CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 119,600
and Pipe Supports Replacement
supports
Lovefield St. Pump Station- Replace old slide gates that are difficult to
WW PS LF-3 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 68,100
Replace Slide Gates operate with motor-actuated gates
WW PS LF-7 Instrumentation and Alarm Old and/or does not operate properly CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 2,200
Improvements
WW PS LF-10 Recoat to protect concrete surfaces CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 49,900
Replace peeling/worn paint
Daley Field Pump Station-Replace
WW PS DF-1 Replace old pumps and sump pump CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 314,700
Pumps
Daley Field Pump Station-Replace Replace old slide gates that are difficult to
WW PS DF-2 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 68,100
Slide Gates operate with motor-actuated gates
WW PS DF-6 Replacement of Motor Equipment is old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 104,400
Page 6 of 9 12/12/2018
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Flume level instrumentation does not work,
WW PS DF-8 Instrumentation and Alarm CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 14,200
alarm system is old
Improvements
Hendrick St. Pump Station-Site
WW PS HE-1 Raise gate boxes to grade CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 1,000
Improvements
WW PS HE-4 Replacement of Motor Equipment is old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 30,900
WW PS HE-6 Instrumentation and Alarm Equipment is old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 28,000
Improvements
Hendrick St. Pump Station-HVAC
WW PS HE-7 Equipment is old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 25,600
Improvements
Mt. Tom Pump Station-Safety
WW PS MT-1 Provide hatch safety grate to improve safety CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 5,700
Improvements
Mt. Tom Pump Station- Replace corroded door, replace deteriorated
WW PS MT-2 Architectural/Structural wood blocking at louver and skylight, CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 16,000
Improvements perform minor brick repointing
Mt. Tom Pump Station-HVAC
WW PS MT-5 Replace old fans, unit heaters and louvers CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 18,000
Improvements
East St. South Pump Station-New
WW PS ES-1 New hatch safety grate to improve safety CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 5,700
Hatch Safety Grate
Oliver St. Pump Station-
WW PS OL-1 Wastewater Pump and Sump Pump replacement CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 31,500
Pump Replacement
Torrey St. Pump Station-
WW PS TO-1 Mechanical/Electrical Blower replacement CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 4,400
Improvements
Test & seal pipe joints and short liner;
WW CS 1 O'Neill St. sewer improvements CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 15,500
significant infiltration was measured
Headworks Bldg-electrical
WW TF HW-6 Replace old electrical wiring and receptacles CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 6,600
improvements
Aeration Tanks-Effluent Slide Old, difficult to access and difficult to
WW TF AT-6 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 78,600
Gates operate
WAS Pump has exceeded its expected service
WW TF RW-5 RAS/WAS Bldg-Replace WAS Pump CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 66,600
life
RAS/WAS Bldg-Misc Electrical Replace old receptacles, lighting, transfomer,
WW TF RW-9 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 75,500
Improvements MCC, paneboard, starters
Replace to allow flow to be determined
WW TF CC-1 Effluent Weir and Level Sensor CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 8,400
during high flow periods
Replacement
Plant Water Bldg-Replace Bldg Ext Joint sealant has failed; door frames are
WW TF PW-2 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 7,200
Expansion Joints and Recoat Doors corroding
Solids Handling Bldg-Sludge
WW TF SH-2 No scale now; would improve operations CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 183,600
Container Scale
Solids Handling Bldg-Belt Filter
WW TF SH-4 Apply coating to protect concrete CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 4,600
Press Containment Area Coating
Page 7 of 9 12/12/2018
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Control Bldg-Pump room Replace BFP feed pumps and sump pumps,
WW TF CB-1 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 271,000
Improvements install in-line grinders
Control Bldg-Lab Fume Hood Old and does not work well (cannot control
Replacement air flow)
Control Bldg-Pump Room Exposed rebar in concrete drainage trench-
WW TF CB-6 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 600
Structural Improvements clean and epoxy paint exposed rebar
Replace deteriorated/missing brick masonry,

Control Bldg-Miscellaneous replace corroded door hardware at main
WW TF CB-10 Structural Improvements at Bldg entrance, repair deteriorated concrete steps CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 41,800
Exterior at main entrance, clean and paint crane rail
frame (paint is peeling)
Control Bldg-Lighting and Replace due to age and to improve energy

Receptacles Improvements efficiency
Control Bldg-Electrical Distribution
WW TF CB-12 Replace due to age CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 629,400
Improvements
Control Bldg-Service Entrance
WW TF CB-13 Replace due to age CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7 $ 85,200
Replacement
Purchase O&M software to improve ability to
WW O&M 1 Collection System O&M Software PURCHASE Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.00 1.67 6.7
track maintenance activities
Lovefield St. Pump Station-HVAC
WW PS LF-8 Equipment is old CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 19,600
Improvements
Lovefield St. Pump Station-Repair

WW PS LF-11 Repair to prevent further damage CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 6,000
deteriorated concrete
Daley Field Pump Station-HVAC

WW PS DF-9 Equipment is old and/or in poor condition CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 38,800
Improvements
Access Road/Driveway
WW TF S-2 Replace damaged pavement CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 740,100
Improvements
Headworks Bldg HVAC Replace make up air unit and controls and
WW TF HW-7 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 84,100
improvements Exhaust Fan 1 (old)
Aeration Tanks-Concrete
WW TF AT-4 Repair deteriorated concrete CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 8,100
Walkway/Stairway Repairs
RAS/WAS Bldg-Replace Scum Scum Pump has exceeded its expected
WW TF RW-6 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 45,600
Pump service life
RAS/WAS Bldg-HVAC Replace old Exhaust Fan/Louver/Damper and
WW TF RW-10 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 8,100
Improvements Controls
WW TF CC-2 Replace 2 old sluice gates CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 20,900
Replace Sluice Gates
Plant Water Bldg-Instrumentation Replace plant water flow meter and related
WW TF PW-1 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 33,000
Upgrades instrumentation
Plant Water Bldg-HVAC Replacement of unit heaters and fans that
WW TF PW-3 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 43,500
Improvements are near end of service life
Page 8 of 9 12/12/2018
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Solids Handling Bldg-
Replace receptacles, lighting, transformer,
WW TF SH-5 Miscellaneous Electrical CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 42,600
panelboards, due to age
Improvements
Solids Handling Bldg-HVAC Replace unit heaters, fans and controls due
WW TF SH-6 CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 40,300
Improvements to age
Replace deteriorated door hardware, repaint
doors, replace deteriorated containment
Storage Rooms
WW TF CB-8 area coating system, replace bent grating CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 41,800
Architectural/Structural
panel, clean and paint steel walkway and
Improvements
stairs
Replace old heaters, ventilation fans and
WW TF CB-17 Control Bldg-HVAC Improvements CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.00 1.33 5.3 $ 160,300
associated controls
Special MH No. 9-Manhan River
WW TF S-5 Replace sensor due to age CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.00 1.00 4.0 $ 3,000
level Sensor Replacement
Mixed Sludge Well-Replace Level
WW TF MS-1 Replace due to age CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.00 1.00 4.0 $ 3,000
Sensor
Replace computer and improve internet
WW TF CB-3 Control Bldg-Office CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.00 1.00 4.0 $ 4,900
connection
$ 14,274,300
Level 1: WW=wastewater project; W=water project; SW=stormwater project

Level 2: PS=pump station project; CS=collection system project; TF=treatment facility project; O&M=operation and maintenance project
Level 3: LF=Lovefield St. PS; DF=Daley Field PS; HE=Hendrick St. PS; LI=Liberty St. PS; MT=Mt. Tom PS; BA=Ballard St. PS; LO=Lownds Ave. PS; EN=East St. North PS; ES=East St. South PS; TR=Truehart Dr. PS; AS=Ashley Cir
BR=Brooks St. PS; PH=Phelps St. PS; CO=Cook Rd. PS; PM=Pomeroy Meadow Rd. PS
OF=Outfall Pipe; S=Site; HW=Headworks; PC=Primary Clarifiers; AT=Aeration Tanks; SC=Secondary Clarifiers; RW=RAS/WAS Building; CC=Chlorine Contact Chamber; PW=Plant Water Building;
SH=Solids Handling Building; CB=Control Building; General Electrical
2
Risk Projects: Negative Impact if project is not conducted and an asset fails. Opportunity Projects: Positive Impacts from the implementation of the project.
3
The Consequence Factor was calculated as follows:
If the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score=1, the Consequence Factor is the weighted average of the other factors.
If the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score=3, the Consequence Factor is the weighted average of all of the factors, including the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score.
If the Permit/Regulatory/Code Violation Score=5, the Consequence Factor is 5.
4
The Risk/Opportunity Score is calculated as the Likelihood of Failure (or of Success) Factor multiplied by the Consequence Factor.
Page 9 of 9 12/12/2018
Project Ranking Summer- Stormwater Projects
City of Easthampton CIP 2018- 2022 Total Weight 7.0
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Regulatory Public Likelihood of
Project ID# Project Title Project Description / Justification System Project Type Driver(s) if Immediacy Health Cost/Benefit Failure (or of Conseq. Factor
Opportunity Impact Code Violation Score (1-25) project Cost
Applicable Impact Success)
(Year 0)
SW IMP 2 Ferry Street culvert improvements SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 4-High 1- No Violation 4 3.33 13.3 $150,000
SW IMP 1 Hendricks Street culvert improvements SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 4-High 1- No Violation 4 3.33 13.3 $200,000
Emerald Place - outlet Outlet structure replacement and slope
SW IMP 3 SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 4-High 3- Potential Violation 4 3.14 12.6 $250,000
structure replacement stabilization
IDDE Plan Implementation - MS4 requirement to develop and
including Outfall implement an IDDE Plan, including
SW MS4 1 SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 4-High 3- Potential Violation 4 3.00 12.0 $192,000
Inspections/sampling - annual inspection and sampling of outfalls and
costs junction manholes.
Maintain municipally-owned BMPs.
O&
SW 3 Maintain structural BMPs Includes initial costs to rehabilitate BMPs SW CONSTRUCTION MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4-High 3- Potential Violation 4 2.86 11.4 $50,000
M
so that they work as designed.
Additional costs associated with
Additional street
increased street sweeping and
SW MS4 12 sweeping/catch basin SW CONSTRUCTION MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 4-High 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4 2.86 11.4 $202,500
catchbasin cleaning requirements of the
cleaning - Annual Costs
MS4 permit
Industrial Drive headwall
SW IMP 4 Headwall replacement SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4-High 3- Potential Violation 4 2.86 11.4 $250,000
replacement
Union Street Transportation Transportation improvement project
Improvement Project that between Cottage Street and High Street,
SW IMP 6 SW CONSTRUCTION Opportunity A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4-High 3- Potential Violation 4 2.86 11.4 $250,000
will include significant to include significant drainage
drainage improvements improvements
Cherry Street headwall
SW IMP 5 Headwall replacement SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 2-Low 4-High 3- Potential Violation 4 2.71 10.9 $50,000
replacement
O& Repair/replace aging pipes Typically upgraded during roadway
SW 2 SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4 2.71 10.9 $750,000
M and structures improvement projects.
O&
SW 4 Street Sweeper Purchase new street sweeper. SW CONSTRUCTION Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 4-High 1- No Violation 4 2.67 10.7 $250,000
M
Identify municipal properties appropriate
SW MS4 6 BMP Retrofit Inventory for installation of a BMP retrofit for SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 2-Low 3- Potential Violation 4 2.57 10.3 $10,500
stormwater quality improvements
Nitrogen Source
SW MS4 4 Identify sources of Nitrogen pollution SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 2-Low 3- Potential Violation 4 2.57 10.3 $23,200
Identification Report
Design a BMP to address Nitrogen
SW MS4 5 BMP Design SW CONSTRUCTION MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 2-Low 3- Potential Violation 4 2.57 10.3 $50,000
pollution
Conduction additional outreach to target
TMDL Related Outreach -
SW MS4 8 audience to address TMDL requirement SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 3- Potential Violation 4 2.29 9.1 $17,570
Annual costs
of the MS4 permit
Develop SWPPPs for Highway garage,
SW MS4 9 SWPPP SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 3- Potential Violation 4 2.29 9.1 $32,600
transfer station and stump dump
Annual inspection of municipal owned
SW MS4 2 Inspect structural BMPs SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 3- Potential Violation 4 2.29 9.1 $38,000
BMPs
Outreach - annual cost
Conduct outreach to target audiences in
SW MS4 7 including Ct River Stormwater SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 3- Potential Violation 4 2.29 9.1 $47,210
compliance with the MS4 permit
Committee membership
Annual maintenance, inspection and
SW MS4 10 SWPPP - Annual Costs SW CONSTRUCTION MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3- Potential Violation 4 2.14 8.6 $11,375
reporting in compliance with SWPPP
Annual training for SWPPP, IDDE, O&M
SW MS4 11 Annual training SW STUDY MS4 Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3- Potential Violation 4 2.14 8.6 $12,300
plan
Page 1 of 3 12/13/2018
Project Ranking Summer- Stormwater Projects
City of Easthampton CIP 2018- 2022 Total Weight 7.0
Consequence Factors
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Total
Regulatory Public Likelihood of
Project ID# Project Title Project Description / Justification System Project Type Driver(s) if Immediacy Health Cost/Benefit Failure (or of Conseq. Factor
Opportunity Impact Code Violation Score (1-25) project Cost
Applicable Impact Success)
(Year 0)
Assess options for implementing a
Stormwater Utility Feasibility stormwater utility to develop a reliable
SW MS4 3 SW STUDY Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4 2.00 8.0 $250,000
Study funding source for stormwater
infrastructure needs
Inspections of storm drain lines older
O&
SW 1 CCTV Inspections than 100 years and those of unknown SW STUDY Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4 1.33 5.3 $100,000
M
age for condition assessment.
TOTAL $ 3,187,255
Page 2 of 3 12/13/2018
Project Ranking Summary - Drinking Water Projects Consequence Factors Total Weight 7.0
Risk Projects: Negative Impact if project is not conducted and an PoF CoF
City of Easthampton IWRMP 2018 - 2022 asset had to fail or Threshold Threshold
values values
Weight Weight Weight Weight
from 1-5 from 1-5
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Likelihood Total
Regulatory Public Risk/
Project Risk / Environ. Permit/ Code / of Failure Conseq. Estimated
Project ID# Project Title Project Description / Justification System Driver(s) if Immediacy Health Cost/Benefit Opportunity
Type Applicable
Opportunity Impact Regulatory Violation (or of Factor project Cost
Impact Score (1-25)
Success) (Year 0)
Develop and implement a formal
WMA Compliance -
W CO WMA-2 leak repair program for compliance W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5 - Immediate Violation 5.0 5.00 25.0 In House
Formalized Repair Program
with WMA Permit.
WMA Compliance - 100% Install meters on all unmetered
W CO WMA-3 W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5 - Immediate Violation 5.0 5.00 25.0 In House
Metering users to comply with WMA Permit.
Develop and implement a meter
WMA Compliance - Meter
W CO WMA-4 evalaution program for compliance W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5 - Immediate Violation 5.0 5.00 25.0 In House
Evaluation Program
with WMA Permit.
Develop and maintaing a database
WMA Compliance - CEMU for tracking of unmetered municipal
W CO WMA-5 W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5 - Immediate Violation 5.0 5.00 25.0 In House
Accounting System uses for compliance with WMA
Permit
WMA Compliance - Water Retrofit all Town-owned buildings
W CO WMA-7 Saving Devices at Public with water saving devices for W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 5 - Immediate Violation 5.0 5.00 25.0 In House
Buildings compliance with WMA Permit
Develop and implement a public
WMA Compliance - Public education and outreach program
W CO WMA-6 W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk Immediate 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5 - Immediate Violation 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 7,000
Education and Outreach regardign water use for compliance
with WMA Permit
Hendrick Street Treatment Replace old exit signage/emergency
CONSTRUC BUILDING
W TF HS-2 Facility & Office - Building lighting that is currently beyond life W (P1) Risk Immediate 5-Very High 1-Minimal 5-Very High 5 - Immediate Violation 5.0 5.00 25.0 $ 7,200
TION CODE
Upgrades expectancy.
The single PTA blower is a critical
failure point that would reduce the
WTP treatment capacity to zero. A CONSTRUC
W TF HS-3 Install Redundant Blower W (P3) Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.0 3.67 14.7 $ 15,000
second blower at the PTA is TION
recommended for added
redundancy.
Replace chlorine gas system with
Replace Chlorine Gas CONSTRUC
W TF HS-11 liquid sodium hypochlorite chemical W Risk A 4-High 3-Moderate 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 3.67 14.7 $ 36,000
System TION
feed system to address safety
Nonotuck Pump Station - Replace old electric unit heater that CONSTRUC
W PS NT-2 W (P1) Risk Immediate 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.67 13.3 $ 7,200
HVAC Upgrades is past estimated service life. TION
Pines Pump Station - SCADA Install a temperature sensor at the CONSTRUC
W PS PN-1 W (P1) Risk Immediate 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.67 13.3 $ 12,000
Upgrades Pines Pump Station. TION
Nonotuck Pump Station - Install a temperature sensor at the CONSTRUC
W PS NT-1 W (P1) Risk Immediate 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.67 13.3 $ 12,000
SCADA Upgrades Nonotuck Pump Station. TION
Install or replace the following
equipment:
1. New air conditioning units (3) CONSTRUC
W TF HS-1 Facility & Office - HVAC W (P1) Risk Immediate 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 5.0 2.67 13.3 $ 34,200
2. Outside Air Damper & Actuator TION
Upgrades
(7)
3. Supply Fan Inlet Filter/ Screen
Page 1 of 5 12/12/2018
values values
from 1-5 from 1-5
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Likelihood Total
Type Applicable
Impact Score (1-25)
Success) (Year 0)
Change storage tank operations to
Operational Alternative E or reduce water age in storage tanks
W O&M* OP-1 W (P4) PROGRAM Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 5-Very High 3- Potential Violation 4.0 3.29 13.1 In House
F and increase water quality. [Follow
with W-ST-DL-1]
Distribution System
Upgrade the 6-inch water main on
Improvements - Park Street CONSTRUC
W DS Pipe-1 Park Street from Greenwood Street W (P7) Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 5-Very High 3- Potential Violation 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 400,000
from Greenwood Street to TION
to Payson Street to increase AFF.
Payson Street
Upgrade 2,000 feet of 6-inch water
Distribution System
main on Lyman Street from Ballard
Improvements - Lyman CONSTRUC
W DS Pipe-2 Street to Florence Road with 8-inch W (P15) Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 462,000
Street from Ballard Street TION
water main to increase AFF for the
to Florence Road
Lathrop Retirement Community.
Upgrade 8-inch water main on East
Distribution System
Street from Ferry Street to Wilder
Improvements - East Street CONSTRUC
W DS Pipe-3 Avenue with new 8-inch to increase W (P15) Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 1,400,000
from Ferry Street to Wilder TION
AFF for the area east of Underwood
Avenue
Avenue.
Perform city-wide unidirectional
City-wide Unidrectional
W O&M OP-3 pipe flushing to provide increased W (P4) PROGRAM Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4.0 3.00 12.0 In House
Flushing
water quality.
Pace chemical dosage to flow in all
W O&M OP-2 Chemical dosing control chemical applications utilized W PROGRAM Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 15,000
throughout the system
Perform an evaluation of
Disinfectant Residual disinfectant residual control in
W O&M ST-1 W (P5) PROGRAM Risk A 5-Very High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4.0 3.00 12.0 $ 25,000
Control System Evaluation storage tanks to improve water
quality.
Replace Mechanic Street water
Distribution System
main in-kind as this location has CONSTRUC
W DS Pipe-4 Improvements - Mechanic W (P15) Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4.0 2.71 10.9 $ 160,000
experienced numerous recent TION
Street
breaks.
Replace Adams Street water main in-
Distribution System
kind as this location has CONSTRUC
W DS Pipe-5 Improvements - Adams W (P15) Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4.0 2.71 10.9 $ 260,000
experienced numerous recent TION
Street
breaks.
Install new SCADA panel and PLC.
Pines Pump Station - SCADA CONSTRUC
W PS PN-2 Current panels are >20 years W (P6) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 24,000
Upgrades TION
beyond expected service life.

Brook Street Pump Station - CONSTRUC
W PS BR-1 Current panels are >20 years W (P6) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 24,000
SCADA Upgrades TION

Nonotuck Pump Station - CONSTRUC
W PS NT-3 Current panels are >20 years W (P6) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 24,000
SCADA Upgrades TION
Page 2 of 5 12/12/2018
values values
from 1-5 from 1-5
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Likelihood Total
Type Applicable
Impact Score (1-25)
Success) (Year 0)
Brook Street Pump Station - Replace current flowmeter and
CONSTRUC
W PS BR-2 Process and pressure transmitter that are W (P9) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 12,000
TION
Instrumentation Upgrades beyond expected service life.
Replace current flowmeter,
pressure transmitter, and flood CONSTRUC
W PS NT-4 Process and W (P9) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 13,000
float. All of this equipment is TION
Instrumentation Upgrades
beyond its expected service life.
Replace current flowmeter and
Pines Pump Station -
pressure transmitter that are CONSTRUC
W PS PN-3 Process and W (P9) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 13,200
beyond expected service life. Install TION
Instrumentation Upgrades
an instrusion alarm on the building.
Replace current flowmeter,
Hendrick Street Pump pressure transmitter, and pumps
CONSTRUC
W PS HS-6 Station - Process and and motors (3). All of this W (P9) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 138,000
TION
Instrumentation Upgrades equipment is beyond its expected
service life.
Replace electric unit heater and
Pines Pump Station -
exhuast fan. All of this equipment CONSTRUC
W PS PN-4 Mechanical Building W (P11) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 6,600
has less than 3 years of remaining TION
Upgrades
service life.
Replace electric unit heater, exhuast
fan, and outside air damper and CONSTRUC
W PS NT-5 Mechanical Building W (P11) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 8,400
actuator. All of this equipment is TION
Upgrades
beyond peak servuice life.
Replace SCADA System Hardware
and Software. Current technology
Hendrick Street Treatment CONSTRUC
W TF HS-5 and programming is obsolete and W (P6) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 156,000
Facility - SCADA Upgrades TION
>20 years beyond expected service
life
Perform a feasibility study for the
installation of cellular based SCADA
Facility -Cellular
W TF HS-4 System Improvements due to the W (P6) PROGRAM Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 25,000
Communication Feasibility
unreliability of leased phone line
Study
links.
Hendrick Street Treatment Replace propellar fans (2), electric
Facility & Office - unit heaters (2), and exhaust fan. All CONSTRUC
W TF HS-7 W (P11) Risk A 4-High 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.67 10.7 $ 21,600
Mechanical Building of this equipment has less than 3 TION
Upgrades years of remaining service life.
Perform a town wide leak detection
WMA Compliance - Leak survey every three years at a
W CO WMA-1 W (P2) PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4.0 2.43 9.7 $ 15,000
Detection Survey minimum for compliance with WMA
Permit.
Page 3 of 5 12/12/2018
values values
from 1-5 from 1-5
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Likelihood Total
Type Applicable
Impact Score (1-25)
Success) (Year 0)
Replace double door and all door
hardware to improve building CONSTRUC
W PS NT-6 Site Work & Building W (P14) Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 3- Potential Violation 4.0 2.43 9.7 $ 22,200
security. Install stairs and railing TION
Improvements
into basement for safety purposes.
Sell water to Southampton as a
W DS OP-4 Sell Water W PROGRAM Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 5-Very High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3
source of additional revenue
Hendrick Street Pump
Replace electric unit heaters (2) that CONSTRUC
W PS HS-8 Station - Mechanical W (P11) Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 4,800
have exceeded their service life. TION
Building Upgrades
Pines Pump Station - Site Replace all door hardware and
CONSTRUC
W PS PN-5 Work & Building install a cahin link fence to secure W (P14) Opportunity A 2-Low 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 19,800
TION
Improvements the site.
Perform regular tank cleaning to
CONSTRUC
W ST* DL-1 Cleaning of Drury Lane Tank improve water quality. [Do after W- W (P8) Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 6,000
TION
O&M-OP-1]
Install a mixer with SCADA inputs to
reduce water age. Replace electric
Peaceful Valley Tank - CONSTRUC
W ST PV-1 unit heater in altitilutde valve vault W (P12) Opportunity A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 134,400
Storage Tank Upgrades TION
that is near the end of
recommended service life.
Perform wellfield study at Hendrick

Hendrick Street - Wellfield CONSTRUC
W WS HSW-1 Street location to determine W (P16) Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.33 9.3 $ 75,000
Study TION
feasibility of wellfield installation.
Purchase new dump truck in order CONSTRUC
W O&M OP-5 Dump Truck W Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 4-High 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 200,000
to transport excavator TION
Brooks Street Pump Station
Replace door hardware to improve CONSTRUC
W PS BR-3 - Site Work & Building W (P14) Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 1,800
building security TION
Improvements
Replace level transmitter and
Drury Lane Tank - Storage CONSTRUC
W ST DL-2 cellular link, which are more than 20 W (P12) Risk A 3-Moderate 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 14,400
Tank Upgrades TION
years beyond expected service life.
Complete the following building
improvements:
1. Install Roof mounted Mechanical
Hendick St. Cold Storage
Exhaust Vents (2). CONSTRUC
W TF CS-1 Building - Site Work & W (P14) Risk A 2-Low 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 2.00 8.0 $ 205,200
2. Provide full fit-out TION
Building Improvements 3. Patch brick wall
4. Replace all doors
5. Fully inspect, repair, and replace
Install water main in Brewster
Distribution System
Avenue to provide required capacity CONSTRUC
W DS Pipe-6 Improvements - Brewster W (P15) Risk A 2-Low 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 145,000
to the proposed Williston School TION
Avenue
dorm.
Evaluation and Purchase of
Purchase and implement a new
W O&M OP-6 Distribution Asset W PROGRAM Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 15,000
distribution system software
Management Software
Page 4 of 5 12/12/2018
values values
from 1-5 from 1-5
1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Likelihood Total
Type Applicable
Impact Score (1-25)
Success) (Year 0)
Replace worn shaft on Nonotuck CONSTRUC
W WS NON-1 Nonotuck Well Repairs W (P16) Risk A 2-Low 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 1,500
Well TION
Perform study to determine the
Maloney Street Well - feasibility of rehabilitating the CONSTRUC
W WS MAL-1 W (P16) Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 3-Moderate 1- No Violation 4.0 1.67 6.7 $ 25,000
Rehab Study Maloney Street Well to obatin TION
additional supply
Hendrick St. Low Lift Pump
CONSTRUC
W PS HS-1 Station - Site Work & Paint exposed interior pipes W (P14) Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 2-Low 1- No Violation 4.0 1.33 5.3 $ 1,200
TION
Building Improvements
Promote the use of efficient
plumbing and appliances through
WMA- Management and
W CO the distribution of educational W (P13) PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 $ 7,000
12 Conservation Measures -
materials included with bills or
Residential Demand
separate mailings.
Perform a rate structure evaluation
WMA- Management and
W CO to develop a rate structure that W (P13) PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 $ 40,000
11 Conservation Measures -
promotes conservation.
Water Rate Study
Perform a comprehensive water
WMA Alternative Demand system audit at least once every five
Management and years. This should include analysis
W CO WMA-9 W (P13) PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 $ 50,000
Conservation Measures - of meter calibration, site visits to
Water Audit ensure metering, review of leak
detection, etc.
WMA- Management and Perform a full review of the water
W CO W (P13) PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 In House
10 Conservation Measures - billing system.
Billing System Review

Management and Develop and maintain a water main
W CO WMA-8 W (P13) PROGRAM WMA Risk A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 See O&M 7
Conservation Measures - break and leak database.
Leak Database
Install new wooden carport (50'
Facility and Office - Site CONSTRUC
W TF HS-9 long, 25' deep) to provide shelter W (P14) Opportunity A 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1-Minimal 1- No Violation 4.0 1.00 4.0 $ 74,400
Work & Building TION
for vehicles.
Improvements
TOTAL 57 Projects Total $ 4,376,100
Page 5 of 5 12/12/2018
8 PRELIMINARY RATE ANALYSIS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Easthampton serves up to 16,053 people with drinking and/or wastewater services.
The DPW Sewer Division is responsible for operation, maintenance and repair of the City's
sanitary sewer and stormwater systems (a wastewater treatment facility, approximately 88 miles
of sewer pipe, 18 pump stations, approximately 1,900 catch basins, 191 stormwater outfalls,71
miles of drain pipes and 54 culverts). The DPW Water Division is responsible for the pumping,
treatment, and distribution of potable water, including the operation and maintenance of one
treatment facility, 4 wells, 1 wellfield, five pump stations, 100 miles of water main, 800 fire hydrants
and 5,500 water meters.
Easthampton’s Water and Sewer Divisions are funded entirely through the Water and Sewer
Enterprise Funds. These funds were established separate from the General Fund and are
financed by revenue from water and sewer billing.
The purpose of this preliminary rate evaluation is to estimate the impact on user rates of the 5-
year CIP. In this Section, we examine the current revenue structure and evaluate the rate
increases necessary to fully fund the 5-year CIP.
8.1.1 Sources of Information
The following sources of information were referenced for this analysis:
• Annual Service Reports

• Annual Budget Proposals (FY 11 – Present)
• Rate History (2001 to Present)
• Enterprise Account Rate and Fee Schedule
8.2 EXISTING RATES AND RATE HISTORY
Easthampton’s current billing rates are $4.50 per hundred cubic feet of sewer, and $3.05 per
hundred cubic feet of water, reflecting a recent $0.25 increase in both that was unanimously
approved by the Board of Public Works. All water and sewer users are charged the same rate,
with a minimum charge of $8. The Water and Sewer rate increases over the past 15 years are
shown graphically in Figure 8-1.

Figure 8-2
Historical Water and Sewer Rates in Easthampton
Figure 8-1
Combined Water and Sewer Average User Bills
When compared to the average combined water and sewer bills in Massachusetts,
Easthampton’s average annual bills have consistently been hundreds of dollars lower over the
past 10 years. The comparison of the Easthampton’s combined water and sewer bills for an
average rate payer compared to the average rate payer in Massachusetts is shown in Figure 8-
2.

8.3 COMMUNITY COMPARISON
As shown in Figure 8-2, Easthampton's water and sewer rates are below the State average, and
a typical customer annual combined water and sewer bill is $894. The rate structures for four
communities with similar customer populations and comparable median household incomes to
Easthampton are described below. The communities, their populations, base charges, and water
and sewer rates are shown in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1
1
Community Comparison
Median
Population Water Rate Sewer Rate Average Bill
Community Household Base Charge
Served (/HCF) (/HCF) (quarterly)**
Income
Easthampton 16,053 $57,617 $8 $3.05 $4.50 $224
Gardner 20,251 $48,843 $80 / yr $5.26 $5.00 $308
Leominster 40,867 $58,846 $160 / yr. $3.67 $4.09 $262
South Hadley 17,723 $61,793 $12.00 $3.92 EDU* $380†
Water: $130 / yr. $4.60 (above $4.75 (above

Ware 9,869 $50,467 $279
Sewer: $168 / yr. 500 cu. ft.) 500 cu. ft.)
*Equivalent Dwelling Unit rate setting method, charges flat $235 rate per Residential Unit.
**Based on 2017 Sewer and Water Rate Study Values.
†
Bills sent biannually; normalized to be equivalent to a quarterly bill.
8.4 PRELIMINARY RATE IMPACTS
The capital projects identified in the CIP will require additional investment above what is currently
available through collections with the existing water and sewer rates. For the purposes of this
preliminary analysis of rate impacts we assumed the following:
• Cost of operations increases each year by 3% based on FY2019 budget

• Expenses from CIP begin in FY2020
• Existing debt decreases by 3% annually
1
Tighe & Bond. (2017). Massachusetts Sewer Rate Survey. Westfield: Tighe & Bond. Web. Accessed May 18, 2018.
https://www.tighebond.com/2017-ma-sewer-rates-survey/

• The CIP is fully funded through billing, funds are not borrowed
• CIP costs are spread out evenly over 5 years
• CIP project costs escalate each year by 3%
• 85% of fees charged are actually collected
• Opportunities for savings are not included
Changes to any one of these assumptions will affect the estimated rate impacts. The rates
projected here are preliminary and will require further refinement through the detailed budgeting
process. The preliminary estimated rates provided here are solely an indication of the scale of
the increases that would be needed to fully fund the 5-year CIP program within a 5-year period
and do not necessarily reflect proposed rate increases.
8.4.1 Drinking Water Service
The total estimated costs for the water recommendations in the 5-year CIP are $4,322,720 in
2016 dollars (December ENR, CCI 10,530). These costs were divided evenly over the five-year
period of the capital plan, which was assumed to begin in FY20, and escalated by 3% per year to
account for inflation. The estimated user rates required to cover the CIP and assumed yearly
increases in the operational costs are shown in Table 8-3. Based on this preliminary evaluation
the water rate would need to increase by 37% to cover the projected CIP costs in FY20.
Table 8-2
Preliminary Water Rates
Existing
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Budget
(FY 20) (FY 21) (FY 22) (FY 23) (FY 24)
(FY 19)
Operational Costs $802,227 $826,294 $851,083 $876,615 $902,914 $930,001
Existing Debt Service $140,708 $162,997 $158,107 $153,364 $148,763 $144,300
5-Year CIP 0 $890,480 $917,195 $944,711 $973,052 $1,002,243
Total Costs $942,940 $1,887,190 $1,934,030 $1,982,560 $2,032,840 $2,084,900
User Rate / 100 cu. Ft. $ 3.05 $ 4.19 $ 4.29 $ 4.40 $ 4.51 $ 4.63
% Increase from
previous year 37 2 3 3 3

Reductions in costs due to energy savings realized through the installation of more energy
efficient equipment, possible revenues from the sale of water to Southampton, or other cost
reductions related to the proposed improvements are not included in these preliminary rate
estimates.
8.4.2 Wastewater / Sewer
The estimated costs for the wastewater portion of the 5-year CIP are $14,274,300. These costs
were divided evenly over the five-year period of the capital plan, which was assumed to begin in
FY20, and escalated by 3% per year to account for inflation. The estimated preliminary user rates
required to cover the CIP and assumed yearly increases in the operational costs are shown in
Table 8-3. Based on this preliminary evaluation, with the assumption that costs would be spread
evenly over five years, the sewer rate would need to increase by over 133% within the first year
to cover the cash-flow of capital project expenditures on the collection system, WWTF and pump
stations.
Table 8-3
Preliminary Sewer Rates
Existing
Budget
(FY 20) (FY 21) (FY 22) (FY 23) (FY 24)
(FY 19)
Operational Costs $1,966,996 $1,333,506 $1,373,511 $1,414,716 $1,457,158 $1,500,873

Existing Debt Service $399,525 $443,881 $430,565 $417,648 $405,118 $392,965
5-Year CIP $2,854,860 $2,940,506 $3,028,721 $3,119,583 $3,213,170
Total Costs $2,366,521 $4,632,247 $4,744,582 $4,861,085 4,981,859 $5,107,008
User Rate / 100 cu. Ft. $4.50 $10.48 $10.73 $11.00 $11.27 $11.55
% Increase from
133% 2% 2% 2% 3%
previous year
8.4.3 Stormwater
For the purposes of this evaluation we assumed that stormwater fees would be assessed using
the ERU method. The 5-year costs and preliminary rate per ERU are shown in Table 8-4. Single-
family residences would be considered 1 ERU. The fee for other uses would be based on the
amount of impervious surface on the property divided by the square footage of the ERU, which

for this assessment is approximately 4,000 ft2. Costs are assumed to increase by 3% each year.
A more detailed discussion on stormwater costs and preliminary estimates for different fee
recovery options is included in the Preliminary Stormwater Funding Evaluation Report (Appendix
W). The costs presented in that memo are based on Year 1, FY 20.
Table 8-4
Preliminary Stormwater Rates
Existing
Budget
(FY 20) (FY 21) (FY 22) (FY 23) (FY 24)
(FY 19)
Operational Costs $692,500 $713,275 $734,673 $756,713 $779,415 $802,797

MS4 $164,800 $169,744 $174,836 $180,081 $185,484
5-Year CIP $473,800 $488,014 $502,654 $517,734 $533,266
Total Costs $1,312,500 $1,351,875 $1,392,431 $1,434,204 $1,477,230 $1,521,547
Annual Rate/ERU $148 $153 $157 $162 $167
Each year includes a 3% increase in all costs, including year 1.
ERU = ~ 4,000 sfFall_2018
8.4.4 Summary
The current and projected fees for water, sewer and stormwater are shown in Table 8-5.
Projected rates are based on numerous assumptions and are provided to illustrate the need to
infrastructure investment. The assumptions used in developing the preliminary projected rates
are:
• Cost of operations increases each year by 3% based on FY2019 budget

• Expenses from CIP begin in FY2020
• Existing debt decreases by 3% annually
• The CIP is fully funded through billing, funds are not borrowed
• CIP costs are spread out evenly over 5 years
• CIP project costs escalate each year by 3%
• 85% of fees charged are actually collected
• Opportunities for savings are not included
Actual fee increases will be determined by the City government.

Table 8-5
Current and Projected Future Rates1
Utility Current Projected (Year 1)

Water $3.05 / 100 cu. Ft. $4.19 / 100 cu. Ft.
Sewer $4.50 / 100 cu. Ft. $10.48 / 100 cu. Ft.
Stormwater $0 / ERU / year $148 / ERU / year
1
The projected future rate is based on the assumptions described in the text above, including the City proceeding with all of the 5-
Year CIP projects over the next five years and not borrowing any funds.
8.5 ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF COST RECOVERY FOR WATER AND SEWER
Easthampton currently charges all user accounts the same rates for water and the same rates for
sewer based on water consumption rates. This is called the uniform actual volume method. Other
cost recovery options include the equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), the actual volume method, and
a type and size method. Each of these is briefly described along with their advantages and
disadvantages.
It should be noted that Easthampton currently does not charge a stormwater fee. A more detailed
discussion of options for assessing stormwater fees is included in the Preliminary Stormwater
Funding Evaluation Report in Appendix W, and is not reiterated below.
8.5.1 Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
The most common rate method for water and sewer rates is the EDU method. In the EDU method,
all residential units are charged the same flat rate. Properties that are commercial, industrial or
institutional are usually charged at the same rate, but will have a different number of EDUs applied
than the residential EDU.
Advantages
• EDU is the simplest method.
Disadvantages
• Users are not rewarded for conservation because Users who use less water and generate
less wastewater pay the same as users who use more.

8.5.2 Actual Volume
The actual volume method bases the sewer bill on the water usage recorded for each customer
through water meter data collection. This method can use rates applied in a few different ways:
• Uniform Rate (what Easthampton currently uses) – constant price per hundred cubic feet
(or per thousand gallons)
• Increasing Tiers – price categories increase depending on usage amounts (targeted
towards encouraging conservation among highest users)
The Uniform Rate is the simplest to implement, but a water conscious community may advocate
for increasing tiers to promote conservation. Many communities will allow a property owner to
install a second meter for sewer users who also use water for irrigation purposes, to help reduce
their sewer bill. This is not allowed in Easthampton, but water users who use water for commercial
purposes, such are farmers, are allowed an exemption.
Advantages
• It is a more equitable rate structure

• Easy to understand and design
Disadvantages
• It requires a higher level of effort than the EDU method to obtain and process the water
meter data for billing
• All meters have to be read, which could be multiple meters per location
8.5.3 Type and Size
In this method, property owners are billed based on the type and size of the buildings on their
property. This method is less commonly used as it is generally more accurate for commercial
and industrial uses than for residential. Modifications of this method to increase the accuracy
include the estimated occupancy method, which bases residential billing on the number of
bedrooms as opposed to the size of the house, and the total fixture method, in which user bills
are based on the number and type of fixtures in each home.
Advantages
• It provides a stable income source for communities with seasonal populations

Disadvantages
• It is not an accurate method of estimating usage

• It is difficult to manage, and does not reward customers for conservation
8.5.4 Other Rate Setting Methods
Seasonal Rates – This type of rate system allows rates to vary during the year; typically
establishing a higher price during peak demand season to better match demand patterns. A cost
of service study and the difference between high-demand and low-demand periods determine the
basis for this rate setting methodology.
Water-Budget Rates - This system profiles customers to develop personalized budgets for indoor
and outdoor drinking water consumption. This rate system can be costly to organize and maintain
and results in more efficient, and thus less, water use by customers. To cover fixed costs, rates
may have to be raised to cover the decrease in revenue from water conservation efforts.
8.5.5 Water and Sewer Rate Recommendations
While the current water and sewer rate structures appear to be equitable, we recommend that the
City evaluate the structure and rates concurrently with the Stormwater Feasibility Analysis to
determine the best overall funding structures for the City to allow for investments in maintaining
the critical water related infrastructure.
8.6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Based on preliminary rate projections, we recommended that Easthampton conduct a Water and
Sewer rate evaluation to provide more information for decision makers in determining when
projects can be funded. We also recommend a Stormwater Utility Feasibility study to assess in
more specific detail the best methods for funding stormwater infrastructure O&M and capital costs.
The advantage of a stormwater utility is that the cost burden is shared by all property owners,
including those that are exempt from property taxes. If a stormwater utility is not instituted,
stormwater costs will continue to be paid only by sewer rate payers and taxed property owners.
Assuming full payment of the 5-year CIP within the first 5 years in an even distribution of costs
over the 5-year CIP results in large rate increases, especially the sewer rates. For initial funding,
temporary surcharges could be assessed to offset some of the initial capital investments, and
reduce the projected yearly rate increases. Reserve funds could also be used to offset the initial

capital investments. For certain capital projects, long term, low-interest loans such as a bond or
State-Revolving Fund low interest loan, could be investigated to reduce the initial cost to the user
base, and to allow for a smaller and steadier increase in rates over time.


Easthampton IWRMP Report - Final

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Easthampton IWRMP Report - Final

Caricato da

Copyright:

INTEGRATED

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

EASTHAMPTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES

Prepared Under the Supervision of:

Neil Kulikauskas, P.E. Pam Westgate, P.E.

Elizabeth G. Baldwin, P.E. David J. Popielarczyk, P.E.

TIGHE & BOND, INC. TIGHE & BOND, INC.

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ES-1

1.1 Overall Project Drivers ......................................................................................1-1

2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...........................................................................................2-1

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................3-1

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................3-1

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................4-1

5 DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................5-1

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................5-1

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................6-1

7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................................................................7-1

7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................7-1

8 PRELIMINARY RATE ANALYSIS ...............................................................................8-1

8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................8-1

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Appendix A Public Participation

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Table ES-1 Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................ ES-17

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

Waterbody Contaminants, if any

Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

The population of Easthampton is predicted to increase to 17,540 persons by 2035, an increase

Wastewater Treatment Facility

Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

There are 18 municipal wastewater pump

• Below-grade concrete wetwells

Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

Wastewater Collection System

The City of Easthampton is served by a separate sanitary sewer system consisting of

The field investigations included:

Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

• Sewer television inspections (16,200± feet)

• Manhole inspections (166 manholes)

• Dyed water testing (36 locations)

• Dyed water flooding (6 locations)

Infiltration was determined to be most significant on the following streets:

• Cherry St. • O’Neill St. • Underwood Ave.

Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

Drinking Water Infrastructure

The higher priority upgrades were:

• Replacement well(s) at the Hendrick Street Wellfield.

Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

Water Supply Analysis