An independent consultant says “no significant adverse environmental impacts” would result from the centralized wastewater system proposed for eight municipal buildings in the Town Center.
Instead, Kim Gennaro-Oancea said the project would improve water quality by annually removing over half a ton of total nitrogen that, on average, now finds its way into the Island’s sole source aquifer.
She said the proposed system would cut the average annual total nitrogen contribution from 1,133 pounds to about 27.4 pounds.
Moreover, placing the treatment system at 16 Manwaring Road would remove municipal wastewater and its related nitrogen from the heavily-burdened Menantic Creek and Shelter Island Sound subwatersheds.
The treated effluent, with its significantly reduced nitrogen, would instead flow into the Gardiners Creek subwatershed with minimal impact, Gennaro-Oancea said. Town Engineer Joe Finora said it’s the equivalent of building two new homes with advanced septic treatment systems in that subwatershed.
The Town Board hired the firm P.W. Grosser of Bohemia to conduct a required state environmental quality review (SEQR). Gennaro-Oancea, a vice president at the company, delivered her report to the Town Board at its Tuesday work session.
As part of her review, Gennaro-Oancea said she consulted with all other local, county, and state agencies involved in decision-making about the proposal. All agreed the Town Board should be the lead agency in the process — meaning they will adhere to the Town’s SEQR findings. In addition, each entity provided the requested feedback.
Gennaro-Oancea said she visited the Island, spoke with planners, analyzed data and materials relating to the proposed system, and reviewed public comments and letters submitted to the Town Board by or on behalf of Islanders.
Negative declaration recommended
The next step is for the Town Board to officially declare a determination of significance. Gennaro-Oancea recommended the board make a negative declaration — a formal SEQR finding of no significant environmental impact.
Town Attorney Stephen F. Kiely suggested the Town Board allow 30 days for the public to submit additional written comments before deciding whether to follow the consulting firm’s advice.
Some people who commented during Tuesday’s meeting asked for a public hearing, but Gennaro-Oancea and Kiely said the SEQR process doesn’t require one.
Supervisor Gerry Siller agreed to discuss a 30-day written comment period with the board, saying, “We’re in no rush.” But he noted the proposal has been discussed at numerous meetings over many months and received much public input. And he asked those submitting comments to consider all information supplied to date.
“Let’s not have the same questions again because we already have the answers.”
Councilman Jim Colligan pointed out that the Shelter Island Board of Education is reviewing a longstanding proposal to upgrade the school’s aging septic system independently. He expressed concern about delaying a Town Board decision and risking losing the school as a partner.
Councilwoman Meg Larsen said the Town Board should complete its due diligence. Receiving the SEQR report was “just the end of one step. There’s a ton of other steps. There’s a whole staircase we have to climb before this is viable, shovel-in-the-ground.”
[NOTE: The Town Board announced Thursday it would accept written submissions through April 21 via email to townclerk@shelterislandtown.gov or in person at 38 North Ferry Road. The board has scheduled SEQR decision-making for the April 25 meetings, 1 PM (work session) and 6 PM (business meeting) at Town Hall. Meantime, the school board has a special meeting on April 19 at 6 PM to decide whether to resume the planned independent upgrade of its septics or modify the proposal to join the centralized municipal system.]
Records relating to the SEQR process, including the original proposal and subsequent updates, are available for public review. Follow this link to find them on the Town website.
About the proposal: The Town would build a system to collect wastewater only (not solids) from eight municipal buildings in the Town Center and send it via underground pipes for treatment in a new facility on a roughly 1.5-acre parcel the Town owns at 16 Marwaring Road. After treatment to reduce nitrates and other contaminants, the effluent would be discharged into the ground. The eight buildings — Community Center, Firehouse, Justice Court, Library, Police HQ, Town Hall, Town-owned rental housing, and School — now rely on antiquated septic systems contributing to high nitrate levels in the area’s drinking water and offer no treatment for other contaminants. Holding tanks at each site would retain solids to be periodically pumped out for disposal at an off-Island facility. In addition to reducing nitrates, the system would address pharmaceutical wastes and other emerging pollutants, like PFOS and PFOA. (For more, read our earlier coverage at Town to Construct Wastewater Treatment Facility on Manwaring site.)
Public input, independent assessment
Colligan asked Gennaro-Oancea to describe the value of public input in the SEQR process.
“Public comments are always helpful,” she said. “It’s the purpose of the SEQR process, I believe, to get the community’s input.”
“It helps to define the community importance and the issues that matter.”
Deputy Supervisor Amber Brach-Williams noted that P.W. Grosser is an independent firm and wasn’t hired — as some have suggested — to return a desired outcome.
“They were hired to do a SEQR analysis, and we did not direct them to come to one conclusion, positive or negative,” she said.
Permits, approvals required
Once there’s a negative declaration, the Town would seek permits or approvals from other agencies for the proposed work.
Among them is a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, which has jurisdiction over all state water resources. A SPDES permit governs a system’s operations and requires strict monitoring.
“The DEC is going to ensure that when the plan is accepted and approved that it is compliant with New York State standards,” Gennaro-Oancea said.
She said the conceptual design by Lombardo Associates meets state standards and expects the DEC to issue a SPDES permit. The board had reviewed and rejected an alternate proposal to install innovative alternative on-site wastewater treatment (I/A systems) to serve the eight sites.
It rejected that approach, in part, because I/A systems are only required to bring the nitrate level in effluent down to 19 milligrams per liter (mg/l).
“You’ve gone a step further, and you’ve gone with a treatment system that treats the effluent down to a concentration of 3 mg/l,” Gennaro-Oancea said. “So to me, it’s a beneficial impact; it’s a better project.”
Groundwater modeling
She noted that Town took the extra step to conduct groundwater modeling using high-confidence data supplied by the US Geological Survey.
“I’ve never seen in my professional career of 20-plus years doing this a plant of 8,000 gallons per day modeled,” she said. “It’s considered a relatively small flow.”
She said modeling would more typically occur for a proposed system with an outflow of 20,000 g/p/d.
The modeling illustrates how the system’s post-treatment low-nitrate effluent would flow into groundwater and ultimately, via natural exchange processes, join the surface waters of Gardiners Creek. Gennaro-Oancea said she’s confident “there are no adverse impacts.”
“To me, it’s a project with beneficial impacts with the removal of over 1,100 pounds of nitrogen,” she said.
Groundwater in that subwatershed flows into Gardiners Creek at around 450,000 g/p/d, she said. Wastewater from developed properties in the subwatershed currently makes up about 2.5 percent of that flow. Adding the proposed system’s treated effluent increases the total wastewater in the groundwater by just 0.8 percent to 3.3 percent.
“It’s minimal, de minimus, negligible,” she said. The centralized wastewater treatment system, “is really the best way to go. It provides the highest level of nitrogen removal.”
Other permits/approvals
In addition to the SPDES permit, Town would also seek the following:
- a permit from the state Department of Transportation for work along the right-of-way on state-owned Route 114
- an easement from the Shelter Island Public Library to locate a pump on its property at the corner of North Ferry and Bateman roads (to move the collected wastewater through pressurized piping to the treatment facility)
Clarifications
Gennaro-Oancea provided clarification for information that public comments indicate may have been misunderstood:
- the proposed Nitrex treatment system is approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) and NYS DEC
- the system is sited per SCDHS and NYS Health Department standards for water wells
- modeling demonstrates that the treated effluent is cross- or down-gradient from area wells or does not intersect with the recharge areas of the wells
- Suffolk County Water Authority has attested that no impact on future public well sites is anticipated
- the development will include a system to capture stormwater runoff
- there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the property
- the required NYS Coastal Assessment Form demonstrates no impact on coastal resources
Mostly temporary impacts
Gennaro-Oancea outlined mostly temporary impacts associated with the project as follows:
- Land disturbance
- 1.5 acres of land disturbance are projected
- stormwater pollution prevention program will include sedimentation and erosion control
- to avoid impact on the Northern Long-Eared Bat, tree clearing will take place between December and February, under DEC guidance
- Traffic construction
- would last nine months
- placement of sewer lines along Route 114 would be subject to a NYS DOT permit
- as required, a work zone traffic control plan would be submitted
- road work would occur outside the busiest months of July and August
- approximately 25 trucks for delivery of equipment and materials are anticipated over five months
- post-development, one vehicle trip per day is anticipated
- solids in the holding tanks at the eight participating buildings need to be pumped out every seven year
Sylvester Manor weighs in
Finora, the town engineer, pushed back on the characterization by some of Gardiners Creek as a “pristine” waterbody, saying it was burdened by development along its shoreline, including Sylvester Manor’s agricultural operations along Manwaring Road opposite the Town site.
He responded to a March 30 letter from Sylvester Manor’s consulting engineer, Drew Bennett. Finora refuted Bennett’s claim of potential adverse impacts on the farm. He noted that the nonprofit initially explored connecting to the Town facility or providing an easement to locate the facility on its 230-acre campus along Gardiners Creek.
Sylvester Manor submitted a letter supporting the project to state regulators in July 2022, and the proposed system has remained largely the same in the interim. (Note: The system’s maximum capacity was extended from 6,000 g/p/d to 8,000 g/p/d to accommodate a newly proposed addition at the library and a new redevelopment concept for the Town-owned rental housing.)
‘Right amount of pollution’
Early in the meeting, the consultant criticized frequent commenter Bob Kohn for inaccurately referencing her findings. Later, he again mangled the figures to falsely declare only “marginal” differences in outcomes while advocating for the board to use I/A systems rather than the centralized treatment plant.
He claimed it would be cheaper, and the Town’s goal isn’t to “maximize the environmental improvement, or whatever,” but is to use the Town’s resources “to have the right amount of pollution, not no pollution.”
Finora said Kohn’s assessment was “totally unfounded and without basis. You’re doing a great job of spewing numbers that are impossible to follow, and none of them coalesce to make any sort of sense with the nitrogen reductions we’re talking about.”
The town engineer has repeatedly said that I/A systems aren’t as effective in handling the concentrated nitrates in municipal buildings’ wastewater. This is due to the predominance of urine in wastewater from such facilities. In homes, high-volume plumbing fixtures like showers, dishwashers, and washing machines, dilute the concentration of nitrogen from toilet wastes.
Colligan said that in addition to the centralized wastewater treatment system, the Town Board would look to create incentives for homeowners in the Town Center to replace aging residential cesspools and septic tanks with I/A systems that are effective for residential use.
“We need a multi-pronged approach to reduce nitrogen and protect the health and welfare of the people that live here year-round,” he said. “This is a great first step, but it’s not the only step.”
Elizabeth Bishop, a member of the Town’s Water Quality Improvement Advisory Board, spoke up to say the group is working to incentivize homeowners in the Center to upgrade their systems.
Other public comments
Here’s a synopsis of other public comments at Tuesday’s meeting:
Town Board members assured Jack Lynch of Hay Beach that there was no truth to the rumor that the Town planned to use the treated effluent to irrigate the golf course at Gardiners Bay Country Club.
Colligan said “fertigation” was just one of many ideas floated during long hours of discussion but not included in the proposed system. As nitrogen is a typical fertilizer component, such effluent elsewhere has been used to fertilize while providing irrigation. Siller suggested the Town could make the treated effluent available to Sylvester Manor for crop irrigation. However, acting on any such options in the future would require additional permit review and SEQR analysis.
Benjamin Dyett asked how the Town intended to fund the proposed system. Colligan, who heads the Town’s Grants Committee, said the Town had gathered about $330,000 in grants toward the estimated $3M cost and was investigating additional financing options.
Stella Lagudis, manager of the Shelter Island Heights Property Owners Corporation, asked that the Town’s final SEQR reporting also note that the project does not impact SIHPOC well sites.
Patrick Clifford asked if the Town Board planned to expand the system to allow for Community Housing in the Center. Councilwoman BJ Ianfolla, who, with Larsen, leads the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Update, said any such expansion would require the Town to establish a public sewer district. That process would involve additional permitting and separate SEQR analysis.
Pam Demarest questioned why the Town didn’t include specific preserved open space parcels as “parkland” near the proposed system on a form. Gennaro-Oancea said the New York State form refers only to state-designated parklands. Demarest also asked about a short environmental form the Town submitted as part of a grant application; Finora said the grant application was for initial design work that did not require SEQR review.
While she did not know the exact number of trees to remove from the site, Gennaro-Oancea responded to another question from Demarest that no clearing would occur between December 1 and February 28, in keeping with NYS rules to protect endangered Northern Long-eared bats.
Cathy Kenny asked for a response to a written comment by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services regarding the proximity to a public water source at a multiple-family housing site next door to 16 Manwaring Road. Finora said state DEC is the public wastewater system’s permitting authority, not the county. However, due to concerns about possible impacts on that well, the Town did modeling studies to demonstrate the proposed design complies with standards for distances from wells.
Kenny also asked why the Town chose not to locate the system at Fiske Field (home of the school baseball field and Town recreational facilities). Finora said that setback requirements would put the system in the middle of the field and that it would require a fence, significantly curtailing its current uses. What’s more, groundwater flow patterns show that locating a system there would continue to burden the stressed Menantic Creek subwatershed.
Dyett asked whether further SEQR review by county agencies was anticipated regarding grant applications. Gennaro-Oancea had previously explained that by agreeing that the Town was the lead agency, all partner agencies agreed to abide by the Town Board’s SEQR determination.
And Finora said the county’s Water Quality Restoration and Protection Program had already approved a grant of $250,000.
Friends of Coecles Harbor member Jan Sudol said his organization would appreciate a 30-day period to review the SEQR report and respond. Kiely said it was appropriate for the Town Board to offer such a period for written comments only. The Town Board would then review the comments before making a final SEQR declaration.
